<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Seun Ojedeji [mailto:<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
</span><span class="">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?
<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Not quite right. ICANN could operate the IANA, as a fully separated subsidiary, if it won the contract from a new contracting authority. The issue is whether
it just “gets” IANA or whether it has to earn it.</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Okay thanks for clarifying this and i also share the fact that ICANN has to earn IANA by being accountable to its customers. However you seem to be indicating that the only way to achieve this is by continuing with the contracting approach which i don't think should be the case. There are 2 major ways by which i think ICANN can be reminded of the fact that it doesn't own the funtions and by so has no absolute control over it.<br><br></div><div>- Through the various policy processes (which i think you also agreed to in your mail)<br></div><div>- Through the service providers: The reality is that the functions are actually in effect because many service providers subscribed to it. If ICANN so extremely miss-behaves then it definitely won't be the end of the Internet as i would expect major service providers to be able to find a way around this. I believe ICANN itself would know that she is not the ultimate source of names and numbers and will like to keep up with its customers demands/needs.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?
<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Yes. The IETF does have a contract with ICANN that allows it to change its registry if the IETF is dissatisfied with ICANN’s performance. The number registries
may not have such a contract, but do have policy processes clearly separated from ICANN.</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>+1 <br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> Names is the only space where policy development and IANA implementation would not be separated if ICANN were to inherit the DNS IANA functions without an external contracting
principal. </span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmm....i think i can almost +1'd this but like to get some clarification. Are you saying that there is already an existing separation between names policy and IANA names function? If yes then i agree to that. Are you also saying that the separation was made possible because of the contract? If Yes, no problem. Would you not also agree then that the current separation can be maintained even without the contract? I for one, expect that the separation would still exist and perhaps ways to ensure that should be on our top agenda.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">We do need to strengthen the accountability of the ICANN policy process. This is in fact the main goal of many of the actors. However, most of them feel, even
more strongly than I do, that the IANA transition is the only real leverage we have to require ICANN to make those changes. Because, as I explain in the original post, if ICANN controls both policy and implementation (IANA) without oversight, accountability
will be much worse than it is now. </span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree that the 2 should be clearly separated (!structural); while ICANN is the home of the names PDP, it should have absolutely no control over it (This is the similar manner existing with the RIR PDP). By this, the oversight will then be a shared responsibility; oversight from the community on ICANN's interpretation of policies during implementation and the other oversight will be that of the external (which could be done by the consortium of affected communities)<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p>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.
<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I do not understand this statement.</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Okay i will further explain, historically and from my discussion with people who where there when it all started. I have figured that ICANN was purpose built; which is to ultimately coordinate the internet resources and the reason why there was need for contract is to allow the then young and vulnerable ICANN grow to maturity before it is fully allowed to be independent. So i think going out of this contracting processes should indeed be the next phase in the growing process of ICANN and it absolutely may not make any much difference if it leaves one contracting regime to enter into another.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt"><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p><span class="">
<p><span style="color:#1f497d">S</span>o 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.<span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">IANA for protocols is already separable; i.e., it is the subject of a contract between IETF and ICANN. The DNS root is in my opinion could be independently managed from the number
and protocol registries without causing any serious complications. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>By DNS root, i presume you refer to the role carried out by Verisign? or is it the names functions carried out by IANA? If its by Verisign, i may not necessarily care much about this for now. However i will be concerned that the IANA functions is getting detached (protocol and numbers are not detached in terms of the function) by making another independent body manage the names function. Perhaps ways of making sure that the IANA functions ONLY gets executed through policies should be explored.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Thanks<br><br clear="all"></div><div class="gmail_extra">Cheers!<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">-- <br><div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">web: </span><a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Mobile: <a value="+2348035233535">+2348035233535</a></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><br></i><i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453" target="_blank"> </a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></span></i><br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The key to understanding is humility - my view !<br></blockquote></blockquote></font><br></div>
</div></div>