Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?
Dear all, (Apologies for cross posting at the outset) At the Centre for Internet and Society, we found ourselves wondering why there was a strong presumption in favour of unified IANA functions after the transition, given that there was at one point of time significant amounts of discourse on splitting these functions. Even as we all debate over the extent of ICANN's coordinating functions over the different functions, perhaps we could open our - minds to the idea of separating the three functions - names, numbers, protocols - after the transition. This idea has been detailed in the blog post below. The three main points we make are : - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for technical specialisation leading to greater efficiency of the IANA functions. - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for more direct accountability, and no concentration of power. - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for ease of shifting of the {names,number,protocol parameters} IANA functions operator without affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function operators. http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tran... We welcome comments on this. Warm Regards Padmini Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore
In my view, the reason this has been resisted, is that the ICANN Establishment would see this as a threat to the larger 'empire' it has created. The facts, from the ccTLD perspective, is that most of the ICANN infrastructure is entirely unnecessary. What is needed is a working, reliable and automated IANA function, and a small staff support that follows policy (RFCs 920 and 1591, as construed by the ccNSO in a 6 year project). It would be very simple, and indeed, would improve stability and reliability to have two IANA functions - one for ccTLDs and one for the rest, IF the contractor (Verisign) accepted instructions from each for their respective areas of responsbility. If ICANN fails to reassure ccTLDs that the 2003 settlement is not being dismantled, this may become more of a proposal. Nigel On 16/11/15 12:01, Padmini wrote:
Dear all,
(Apologies for cross posting at the outset)
At the Centre for Internet and Society, we found ourselves wondering why there was a strong presumption in favour of unified IANA functions after the transition, given that there was at one point of time significant amounts of discourse on splitting these functions. Even as we all debate over the extent of ICANN's coordinating functions over the different functions, perhaps we could open our - minds to the idea of separating the three functions - names, numbers, protocols - after the transition.
This idea has been detailed in the blog post below. The three main points we make are :
* Splitting of the IANA functions allows for technical specialisation leading to greater efficiency of the IANA functions. * Splitting of the IANA functions allows for more direct accountability, and no concentration of power. * Splitting of the IANA functions allows for ease of shifting of the {names,number,protocol parameters} IANA functions operator without affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function operators.
http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tran...
We welcome comments on this.
Warm Regards
Padmini Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:08:22PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
In my view, the reason this has been resisted, is that the ICANN Establishment would see this as a threat to the larger 'empire' it has created.
I'm not really sure why this list is the correct place to discuss post-transition arrangements for IANA -- even for names -- given that ICANN has a whole working group talking about that very topic. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Agree with Andrew, the CWG was/is the place for such discussions not the CCWG. -Jg On 16/11/2015, 1:49 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:08:22PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
In my view, the reason this has been resisted, is that the ICANN Establishment would see this as a threat to the larger 'empire' it has created.
I'm not really sure why this list is the correct place to discuss post-transition arrangements for IANA -- even for names -- given that ICANN has a whole working group talking about that very topic.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
This issue (separate or integrated IANA functions operators) is really an issue that CCWG has nothing to say about. It was already decided by the three operational communities that each IFO would be separable, and protocols and numbers already have clear ways of separating from ICANN, whereas names has a very difficult and complicated process for doing so. CCWG touches on this issue ONLY insofar as the instructions of the separation process must be enforceable somehow (for ONLY the names community). From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Padmini Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 7:01 AM To: BestBits; governance@lists.igcaucus.org; Accountability Cross Community; NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Do we need a unified post-transition IANA? Dear all, (Apologies for cross posting at the outset) At the Centre for Internet and Society, we found ourselves wondering why there was a strong presumption in favour of unified IANA functions after the transition, given that there was at one point of time significant amounts of discourse on splitting these functions. Even as we all debate over the extent of ICANN's coordinating functions over the different functions, perhaps we could open our - minds to the idea of separating the three functions - names, numbers, protocols - after the transition. This idea has been detailed in the blog post below. The three main points we make are : * Splitting of the IANA functions allows for technical specialisation leading to greater efficiency of the IANA functions. * Splitting of the IANA functions allows for more direct accountability, and no concentration of power. * Splitting of the IANA functions allows for ease of shifting of the {names,number,protocol parameters} IANA functions operator without affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function operators. http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tran... We welcome comments on this. Warm Regards Padmini Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore
Thanks Andrew, James and Milton, I suggest moving this discussion to the appropriate list. Best regards, León
El 16/11/2015, a las 10:59 a.m., Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> escribió:
This issue (separate or integrated IANA functions operators) is really an issue that CCWG has nothing to say about. It was already decided by the three operational communities that each IFO would be separable, and protocols and numbers already have clear ways of separating from ICANN, whereas names has a very difficult and complicated process for doing so.
CCWG touches on this issue ONLY insofar as the instructions of the separation process must be enforceable somehow (for ONLY the names community).
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Padmini Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 7:01 AM To: BestBits; governance@lists.igcaucus.org; Accountability Cross Community; NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?
Dear all,
(Apologies for cross posting at the outset)
At the Centre for Internet and Society, we found ourselves wondering why there was a strong presumption in favour of unified IANA functions after the transition, given that there was at one point of time significant amounts of discourse on splitting these functions. Even as we all debate over the extent of ICANN's coordinating functions over the different functions, perhaps we could open our - minds to the idea of separating the three functions - names, numbers, protocols - after the transition.
This idea has been detailed in the blog post below. The three main points we make are : Splitting of the IANA functions allows for technical specialisation leading to greater efficiency of the IANA functions. Splitting of the IANA functions allows for more direct accountability, and no concentration of power. Splitting of the IANA functions allows for ease of shifting of the {names,number,protocol parameters} IANA functions operator without affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function operators.
http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tran... <http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tran...>
We welcome comments on this.
Warm Regards
Padmini Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (6)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
James Gannon -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Padmini