Giving both the right to operate the IANA functions, and the responsibility for operating the Root Zone, to the same entity would be far worse in respect of accountability and creating a new massively centralised power structure in Internet Governance than even the current idea of simply transferring IANA to ICANN in perpetuity.

I cannot fathom how anyone who believes in distributed Internet governance can even contemplate such an idea.

But I am a relative newcomer. Can someone who supports such a notion explain it?

best

Jordan

On 17 December 2014 at 19:05, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the share... NTIA's role in this may not necessarily be replaced. One could then envision an arrangement between the operator and verisign (assuming verisign is still willing). It's good to note that some of the processes are already automated.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 16 Dec 2014 23:31, "Allan MacGillivray" <allan.macgillivray@cira.ca> wrote:

The NTIA has just posted a document on its role in Root Zone Management:  http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntias_role_root_zone_management_12162014.pdf

 

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.