[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Thu Sep 4 08:53:17 UTC 2014


On 4 September 2014 11:47, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:

> On Sep 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> wrote:
> > But: isn't the main debate the fact that there is a policy/operations
> separation for protocols and numbers, but not names?
> >
> > And that the simplest, most elegant way to achieve that for names is to
> put the IANA functions operator in a new box?
> Given that the IANA has been performing its tasks correctly, moving it
> will not
> meaningfully change the present situation or outcomes.

It changes the accountability environment for names, with no difference for
the other customers. Nobody wants to change the present operational
situation per se.

> On the other hand, if the problem is that the DNS community does not have
> an
> independent voice with which to engage ICANN as a partner (rather than only
> having internal accountability mechanisms as deigned by the Board), that
> is a
> different situation and likely require something other than just moving
> the IANA
> to address.
> > (compared with gTLDs and ccTLDs having to form non-ICANN policy
> bodies... a nightmare if ever there was one)
> See above.
Do you genuinely think it is easier to move the set of names stakeholders
than it is to move the IANA functions operator, given their relative scale,
diversity, operational consequences, etc?

I'd be interested in you teasing this out.

I'd also like to point out that there are many forms of "moving". An easy
one is a management board for the IANA department that has to validate
changes as in line with policy etc, but leaving it within ICANN legally and
practically (finance, HR etc).  A slightly bigger departure is as a wholly
owned subsidiary company of ICANN with an operating agreement. The most
radical approach as outlined by Milton months ago is more complicated, but
would also work.

To me, any of those is cleaner than saying: "Hey governments, registries,
registrars, at large users - you have to move organisations now to do names
policy. Yes, that's like ICANN the Second, but it's easier than hiving off
a couple dozen people in a nice brightline solve... oh, wait..." :-)


> Thanks,
> /John
> Disclaimer: my views alone.

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

*To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140904/dddd6593/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list