Good evening:
1. It is important that Post Transition IANA, as a whole, remains anchored with Protocols and Numbering, that is with IETF and the RIRs. There are several reasons for this. ( a ) Open Internet Standards are critical for fair competition and low entry barriers. Governments and Users have an existential interest in the work of IETF. ( b ) Numbering, and particularly communications numbering are of critical interest to public policy. Most governments have accepted with more-or-less good grace that that shall continue to be done for the Internet by the RIRs. However, I believe that in the last resort their ability to comment and advise on numbering policy through ICANN/IANA/GAC is a significant element in their acceptance.
2. The recent debate within the CWG has clearly revealed support for separation of IANA/Names from the other IANA functions and - if possible - from ICANN. Whether that has been for ideological or commercial reasons is immaterial at this stage. The present CWG compromise proposal is workable for the time being, but I expect that debate on separation to re-open shortly after the transition, not least on the basis of the proposed array of IANA performance criteria.
As a long-time student and practitioner of industrial economics applied to the information society, let me say that IANA, as a fully privatised commercial service, would become financially invaluable to its owners. I do not want to see that happen, ever. The first line of defence is to ensure the continued integration of all IANA functions: Naming, numbering and protocols. The second line of defence is to make it as difficult as possible to separate IANA from ICANN (as to be reformed under the CCWG Accountability proposals). In the last resort, a 'separate' IANA must be protected as a public service against any form of capture. However, that last resort is not yet credible. There are no safeguards in place, not least because the multistakeholder community has tacitly, if not explicitly, come to the conclusion that we do not wish to reproduce all the checks and balances that ought to be present within ICANN, in the IANA context as well.
3. Granted, IETF/CRISP/RIRs/CWG have all been working to date within their respective 'silos'. So be it, although the risks were already visible in ICANN 50/London. It is now up to the ICG to make sure that they do not materialise. ICG must ensure that there is no 'poison pill' for post transition IANA arising from the 'separability' debate in CWG.
Regards
CW
On 28 Apr 2015, at 22:18, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CWG-Stewardship,
Following a request from our GAC member Elise Lindeberg and the two briefing webinars on 24 April (last week), the Chairs are going to hold two additional webinars on 6-7 May. The announcement will be posted within the next 24h, but I wanted to share the information with the group now.
The two additional webinars will be held on: 6 May from 13:00 – 14:30 UTC (time zone converter here) 7 May from 06:00 – 07:30 UTC (time zone converter here)
These webinars will focus more on the content of the proposal and less on the work process that led to the development of the 2nd draft proposal. The main value of these webinars is that they will allow for further questions and answers from the community, while still giving the community enough time to submit comments in time for the close of the public comment period on 20 May.
Brenda will send calendar notices to the group with call details.
Talk to you all on the CWG call on Thursday, Grace
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship