<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 5 Sep 2014 09:48, "Milton L Mueller" <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
Hello Milton,</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.<br>
But again, I may have missed something which you perhaps have not indicated in your mail</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!<br>
> <br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Milton L Mueller<br>
><br>
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/">http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</a><br>
><br>
> Internet Governance Project<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://internetgovernance.org">http://internetgovernance.org</a><br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</p>