[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
jcurran at istaff.org
Fri Sep 5 07:16:39 UTC 2014
On Sep 5, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org]
>> Given that the IANA has been performing its tasks correctly, moving it will not
>> meaningfully change the present situation or outcomes.
> John, please engage in the argument seriously and don't feed us I* propaganda.
I am very engaged (and my views truly are my own) but you've conveniently
omitted the context from my answer... I was replying to Jordan and noting
that he is seeking improved accountability, but it appears that the actual
concerns that he'd discussing are _not with the IANA_ but actions of ICANN
organization in implementation of the DNS policy.
i.e. even if "Milton Inc." were running the IANA, it might not change any
of the outcomes that he was expressing concern with, to the extent that they
are the result of actions/decisions taken by ICANN elsewhere, rather than the
team in ICANN performing the IANA tasks.
> In short, you cannot infer anything from the status quo, because the status quo will - at its own request - cease to exist on September 15, 2015. To leave IANA in ICANN without the NTIA is not the status quo, it is a radically different system. Thus no performance standard that occurred under the old system can be projected into the future unless there are new oversight arrangements comparable to NTIA.
> Structural separation is one proposed way of responding to that absence.
Again, my point is not that structural separation is "good" or "bad", but
only that we need to be very clear that moving IANA doesn't necessary address
any problems that exist elsewhere in the system (e.g. if a problem is with
the policy implementation process that occurs _before_ IANA gets involved.)
Disclaimer: my views alone.
More information about the discuss