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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Sep 5 07:16:31 UTC 2014

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 5 Sep 2014 09:48, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> The other way in which separation affects accountablity is by making the
relationship between finalized policy and implementation more visible, more
easily regulated, more transparent. The process of moving from ICANN policy
to IANA implementation has to move across clear organizational boundaries,
and that means it can be observed and organized for oversight better.  This
also has the very important effect of preventing the policy developer from
implementing a policy that has not really been finalized. Imagine what
would happen, e.g., if ICANN could just put something in the root, or
remove it, without going through a consensus policy process. It would have
arbitrary power over the global DNS. Structural separation of the policy
development process from implementation prevents this from happening; ergo,
it is more accountable.
Hello Milton,

I think you have clearly identified the problem which is ensuring that
ICANN does not update the IANA record without following clearly defined
policy process. You are now saying that the ONLY solution to avoid that is
by taking IANA out? This is the aspect I am quite concerned about,
considering that IANA records contains not only the names but includes
numbers and protocol parameters. Are you saying that the reason why ICANN
has not done something contrary on numbers and protocol parameters is
because of the contract and not because of the policy/agreements? If it's
because of the policy (hoping that's your view) why can't we then
concentrate on strengthening the policy process for names and how will
taking IANA out really solve that problem because the policy process is
still broken and it means IANA is more prone to record update without
following due process.

There is also one aspect that we need to also remember, which is the
purpose of ICANN and the essence of removing the contract which is largely
to indirectly end the contracting regime. So if you are saying takeout
IANA, you need to be clear on whether it's the 3 function (which ofcourse
may not go well with IETF and NRO). If you are taking out the DNS function
only, then you will have further fragmented IANA and then introduce
unnecessary complication and oversight issue on wherever body you are
taking the function to.
But again, I may have missed something which you perhaps have not indicated
in your mail

> I hope this makes it clear to you how accountability and structural
separation are related. Of course, I don’t expect to change your position
on this – as I said, it is evident that you do take sides on this issue and
that you oppose structural separation.
> Milton L Mueller
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140905/386b71c1/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list