<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 12:22 PM, 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"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><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;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;"><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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, I rather thought that ICANN itself might be able to do that for names. But I know that might be a rather heroic assumption for a range of reasons.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If that makes the DNS community comfortable, then that's fine. Mind you, that assures</div><div>that any external IANA operator follows ICANN's direction and is an exact replication of</div><div>the current system minus NTIA.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><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;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;"><div><div class=""><div><br></div></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><div class=""><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"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Because it separates the ICANN Board from having two roles: of accepting / making names policy, and governing the IANA functions operator.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Please elaborate.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> I think you'll find that IANA has been following directions accurately, but there's quite a</div><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;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;"><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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think the root cause of the angst is ICANN's culture, and its failure to conceive of its role as primarily serving the community.</div><div><br></div><div>That cultural failure leads to the sorts of staff and Board decisions that have eroded trust between ICANN-the-organisation and the ICANN community.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Again, you are referring to decisions that are being made within _ICANN_, and hence are</div><div>unaffected by any move of the IANA external to ICANN (particularly if ICANN is the one who</div><div>contracts with the IANA operator for the DNS IANA registry maintenance, as you propose</div><div>above...) </div><div><br></div><div>I actually don't know if moving the IANA outside of ICANN is a good idea or not; there are</div><div>certain stability issues that weigh heavily, but we also have existence proof that such teams</div><div>can be transitioned from their parent organizations successfully. My main point is that moving</div><div>IANA (or not) doesn't actually have any meaningful impact on the ICANN accountability, which </div><div>appears (from those on the sidelines such as myself) to be the DNS communities principal </div><div>source of angst.</div><div><br></div><div>FYI,</div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimer: my views alone.</div><div><br></div></body></html>