<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Sep 4, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><div dir="ltr">John,<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 4 September 2014 11:47, John Curran <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org" target="_blank">jcurran@istaff.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On Sep 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> But: isn't the main debate the fact that there is a policy/operations separation for protocols and numbers, but not names?<br>
><br>
> And that the simplest, most elegant way to achieve that for names is to put the IANA functions operator in a new box?<br>
<br>
</div>Given that the IANA has been performing its tasks correctly, moving it will not<br>
meaningfully change the present situation or outcomes.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It changes the accountability environment for names, with no difference for the other customers. Nobody wants to change the present operational situation per se.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>It does, but only if you presume that each of the served communities has a clear</div><div>voice and can meaningfully contract for its portion of the IANA services. Is this</div><div>your understanding as well?</div><div> <br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto;">
<br>
On the other hand, if the problem is that the DNS community does not have an<br>
independent voice with which to engage ICANN as a partner (rather than only<br>
having internal accountability mechanisms as deigned by the Board), that is a<br>
different situation and likely require something other than just moving the IANA<br>
to address.<br>
<div class=""><br>
> (compared with gTLDs and ccTLDs having to form non-ICANN policy bodies... a nightmare if ever there was one)<br><br>
</div>See above.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Unless the names stakeholders have organized to the extent of being able to enter </div><div>into an agreement for IANA services, I am uncertain how moving the IANA provides </div><div>any additional accountability.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
</div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div></div></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I'd be interested in you teasing this out.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In all of those cases, IANA would have made the same IANA registry changes (e.g.</div><div>to the DNS root zone) as it did over the past decade, correct? If that's not the case, </div><div>I'd like to understand what it would have done differently and how the proposed </div><div>"changed accountability environment for names" would have produced a different</div><div>outcome.</div><div><br></div><div>I think you'll find that IANA has been following directions accurately, but there's quite a</div><div>bit of "DNS policy implementation" which takes place within ICANN and that sometimes</div><div>heads in unexpected directions. If this is the case, focusing on IANA accountability is</div><div>missing the root cause of the angst that is being experienced, yes?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: my views alone.</div><div><br></div></div></body></html>