[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Keith, Wolfgang, all,

only partly true. I'll skip details and go to the consequences: as ccTLDs
and RIRs contribute only marginally to ICANN's funding, the majority of
ICANN's funds stem from the gTLD space.

A paradox ensues in which the same parties that do not contribute funds
complain about ICANN being overly dependent on a single source of funding.

Given that Wolfgang brings up the "T-bone" nickname (not extensively used)
another piece of folklore could have arisen and didn't, "pony up or shut
up", to use some deep USian vernacular for the principle of
corresponsibility. Water under the river now.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz>wrote:

> Thanks Wolfgang for the further triggers to memories of the "good old
> days" I recall several significant ccTLDs seriously discussing the
> deployment of alternate root servers and walking out of the ICANN process
> altogether - such was the dismay with the idea of the 3-way contracts ICANN
> was insisting on.
>
> Since its inception, ICANN has tried to intertwine the IANA contract into
> its own activities to the extent of making IANA inextricable from ICANN. So
> while those early days were really unhealthy, I don't think there has ever
> been a particularly healthy state for ICANN in regard to the IANA function.
> The last contract renewal with its forced functional separation possibly
> caused some discomfort.
>
> Anyway, the purpose of this post is to remind us all that we need the
> right "checks and balances" to ensure the current and future ICANN is fully
> accountable and transparent and the best way to achieve this is through a
> structural separation of policy and procedure for the IANA function.
>
> Cheers
>
> Keith
>
> On 18/03/2014 11:18 p.m., "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> thanks for this history. As I remember, part of the pressure on ccTLDs to
>> enter into contractual relationship with ICANN (the proposed trilateral
>> mechanism was nicknamed the T-Bone) was the plan, that ccTLD should pay for
>> the IANA service (based on the number of name registrations under the given
>> ccTLD). Among others, Sabine from DENIC rejected this as a matter of
>> principle. The discussion triggered the elaboration of the GAC ccTLD
>> principles and ICANN gave up the idea to push for contracts with ccTLD
>> registries. Now ccTLDs make, if they wish, voluntary financial
>> contributions.
>>
>> In my eyes this is a good example how the multistakeholder bottom up open
>> and transparent process works. ICANN was in it early years, still a baby in
>> the craddle, and had to learn a lot. And it learned. Slowly, but it
>> stumbled forward. ICANN is still a teenager. But it has matured. It has
>> still to learn more. In 2018 ICANN becomes a "twen" :-))).
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140321/5c529307/attachment-0001.html>