I am 100% in agreement with this statement. Cheers! On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
A couple of three things.
The principle of how the function is funded is established; those who ultimately use the service funds the service delivery. But IMHO, this argument has moved from what of the very small piece of the IANA function - purely oversight and the role played thusly by the NTIA - to a totally independent-of-ICANN IANA Functions operator.
My sense of the room is that the question of moment for most is not just a IANA functions oversight provider but the confguration of an independent [of ICANN] IANA functions operator.
Current funding process - from collection to receipt thru utilisation - has ICANN in the middle. Assuring an independent IANA functions provider means re-engineering that process flow.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 6:39 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Apologies crossed wires!
I don’t think there is any concern over the registries and registrars funding a new IANA entity but rather if that funding came via ICANN rather than directly to the new entity. Not from my perspective in any case, open to other points of view from the various communities.
- James
On 26 Oct 2014, at 04:05, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
And my question: Where does IANA’s money come from now. My understanding is that the NTIA’s only role is oversight - not funding. If that is the case, then industry (registries/registrars) already fund IANA functions - so the call for IANA functions to remain cost free is simply an extension of the present situation (without NTIA oversight). Any corrections welcome.
HOlly
On 26 Oct 2014, at 6:23 am, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I think that funding an impartial public service via a privately interested stakeholder without introducing allegations/impressions of influence or control would be close to impossible. Thus an alternative funding model for an independent IANA entity, should that be the option chosen, must be considered and be discussed.
-James
On 25 Oct 2014, at 19:55, Christopher Wilkinson < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
2. All the IANA services must remain cost-free to the final user. There must be no question of charging for specific services, notably amendments of the Root Zone. ICANN already has more than ample resources to ensure that the present and future IANA is fully funded on a public service basis, as at presen
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !