Financing the new IANA
Curious if the question of how the "new" IANA would be financed has been asked ? Sent from my iPhone
Robert: It will depend: if the final option is to keep the function under the ICANN umbrella, then my understanding is that ICANN will keep financing it. On the other hand, if it is moved outside ICANN, then i presume it can be supported by all entities requiring its services. -ed On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote:
Curious if the question of how the "new" IANA would be financed has been asked ?
Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
People, I just wanted to share this with all of you as we move. Just information sake nothing to diverge our initial thinking. But more as a take note of happenings. Kris Message: 1 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:43:16 -0500 From: Techno CAT <mars.techno.cat@gmail.com <mailto:mars.techno.cat@gmail.com>> To: "ianaxfer@nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer@nro.net>" <ianaxfer@nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer@nro.net>> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] [IANAtransition] LETTER to Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr - U.S. Attorney General Message-ID: <CAK41CSS0AfWjXriKzsXQ1YDUFRV0W8f8Y+i3oBNOCE+nh=AKew@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAK41CSS0AfWjXriKzsXQ1YDUFRV0W8f8Y+i3oBNOCE+nh=AKew@mail.gmail.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 ICANN is a Contractor of the US Government - Department of Commerce The following TEXT from .MARS is provided for .EARTH Archive Purposes Only cat is one of the original UNIX commands - Sending email to C@T uses the .T Top Level Domain =============================================================== http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/000648.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/000648.html> Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr U.S. Attorney General Office of the Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Via eMail: AskDOJ at usdoj.gov <http://usdoj.gov/> Dear Attorney General _______________: The Internet is in serious trouble. The legacy DOD DARPA Internet was built using a Tin-Can and Kite-String Architecture (TCKS). Bob connects his treehouse to Carol?s cave. Carol connects to Alice?s hut. Ted comes along, on his mountain; he connects to all three. All four get their Unique Addresses from some mysterious, opaque, private citizen(s) who claim to have government authority. The IANA.of.OZ baffles people. Naive academics, military funders, computer hackers, idealistic opportunists and cut-throat business people combined to build the early Internet. Anyone with expensive IPv4 ARPA-centric TCP/IP routers could expand the Legacy Internet. Unsuspecting consumers had no idea who was processing their packets. Unseen Street Gangs and Router Wars shaped the CyberSpace. Some people worship this as their Multi-Stakeholder Model. Other people recognize the BGP BiGProblems of Self-Governance. Internet Governance of unique Artificially Scarce Network Resources (ASNR) emerged. A Cyber TAX system was constructed using Domain Names (DNS). Three high-school chums, Jon Postel, Vinton Cerf, and Steve Crocker have dominated the CyberSpace DNS Governance for decades. Other insiders have been added to the small IANA clique that controls the allocation of resources. Jaw-dropping compensation packages are used to pad organizations with people who seem to accomplish very little. An Internet Society (1992) was formed to protect jack-booted thugs who claimed to be Internet Engineers. Some did not have a high-school diploma. Vigilantes emerged, as Internet self-government took on a life of its own. Socialist/Communist structures dominated. Mercenaries and Soldiers of Fortune are now becoming more common. Some describe the state of affairs as the book, "Lord of the Flies", combined with the book, "A Brave New World"[1]. Juvenile delinquents populate many of the Internet Governance Forums. They SELF-APPOINT themselves to Internet Governance roles. The Multi-Stakeholder Model allows anyone to claim anything and even represent the U.S. Government. [1]"Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy." Pseudo-Governance Officials [Private Citizens] make up the rules, to suit their PRIVATE financial needs. Corruption, kick-backs, black-listing, red-lining, etc. are common. Off-Shore operations in the Cayman Islands, the Caribbean and Switzerland handle the anonymous opaque financial transactions. The ISOC-IETF-IANA-ICANN-RIR Cartel is called The Eco.System. It is actually a simple Multi-Level-Marketing empire built on TAX collections from unsuspecting Netizens. The insiders are well-funded and travel the world, promoting their Multi-Stakeholder MLM. One participant in the ISOC-IETF Meetings and the ARIN Meetings claims he "Represents the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT". This juvenile delinquent has a long history working with Jon Postel - IANA. They both use "word games" to misinform novice observers and the general public. These unprofessional players think omitting "US" from the title gets them by. At a subsequent meeting, the individual claimed he was "contracted with the FBI". Later in the meeting, he gave his affiliation as [not audible mumble words]. Juvenile delinquents treat the Internet Governance meetings as some sort of Video Game. They are not accountable for their actions. It is not clear if the US Department of Justice provides any over-sight of these individuals. In one case, it appears that ICANN is contracting with a private security company, which claims to have a long history of "working with the FBI". That is not the same as "being the FBI". In another case, ICANN appears to employ a well-known computer hacker who runs a major trade-show in Las Vegas each year. He commands an army of over twenty-five thousand techies who pride themselves on breaking into computer systems. ICANN and the ISOC-IETF Eco.System endorse and promote the Culture of Corruption. Young people are confused and drawn into the CULT. Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice now control the packet flows, sell copies, and contract with U.S. Government agencies or The.ECO.SYSTEM to compromise other citizen's systems. Most government officials were intentionally excluded from the early Internet. Other Government officials were "used" as enablers and shields, to hide the development of the insidious ISOC.IANA Cartel. Major telecom carriers were also intentionally excluded. Internet operator groups, dominated by psychopathic attention-starved jerks grew to become the hubs of control. The NSF funded NANOG is one example. Ted is a Member of NANOG. Carol lords over ARIN which secretly funds NANOG. American consumers, are accustomed to regulated companies, with ethical standards, managing their critical telecom and data facilities. Unsuspecting consumers have been intentionally kept in the dark by the Multi-Stakeholder Cartel (MSC). Juvenile delinquents dominate the various gatherings of the MS Cartel. Consumers have no idea they are vulnerable to these amateur network operators. Self-serving academics coddle the juveniles and deflect government scrutiny with fabricated distractions. They are called WMDs - Weapons of Mass Distraction. With the TCKS Internet Architecture, Non-Government [self-appointed] Vigilantes can snoop and spy on individuals and groups. In some cases, they [Bob & Carol] are willing to sell their services to anyone that will pay them. For decades they have demonstrated that their ethical norms are far different from the American Telco industry. They pride themselves on being what many people would summarize as, Cyber Bullies. These Cyber Bullies and Street Gangs have also taken it upon themelves to SELL valuable US Government ASSETS in the form of Address Spectrum The Internet IPv4 Address Space is no different from Radio Spectrum, managed for the public, by the US FCC. A typical ICANN IANA IPv4 Address Allocation has a street value of over $3,000,000,000 (yes Billion). The U.S. Government has been a casual party to many of the legacy Internet evolutions. In the early days, the National Science Foundation NSF meddled in network developments, with mixed results. A few major universities and academic personalities did very well, financially, once they figured out how to game the NSF Grant processes. They obtained Artificially Scarce Network Resources (ASNR) via NSF Grants and then sold them for private gain. The NSF looked the other way. Subtle financial kick-backs to the NSF greased the process. As commercial companies began to migrate to the legacy Internet, the U.S. Government over-sight shifted from the NSF to the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). A DOC sub-agency, NTIA, handled most of the tasks. The obscure Internet Cartel function called "IANA" was morphed into a California Public Benefit Non-Profit company called ICANN - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers. (1998) In general, non-profit corporations have been used as shells to hide the true financial dealings of the Internet Cartel (MSC). Cyber Bullies openly proclaim that they are non-profit "religions" while secretly banking millions. In some cases, they also have a for-profit vest-pocket company. Their ethics are justified under THEIR, unwritten, shifting rules of the "International" Multi-Stakeholder Model. Since 1998, ICANN has evolved into a corrupt private companion to the Internet Society (ISOC-IETF) founded in 1992. The private ISOC-IETF ICANN-IANA ARIN Eco.System skillfully used the US Government as a shield and enabler for decades. The DNS Cyber Tax system has been used to fund their lavish travel and world-wide outreach programs. ICANN has now been captured by nefarious "International Operatives", primarily from Egypt and the Middle East. The arrogance of the ISOC IANA Eco.System has no bounds. The ISOC IANA Eco.System is carefully structured with Clerics, Insiders, Militia, Operatives, Thugs, Groupies, and what Lenin and Stalin called Useful Idiots. Artificially Scarce Network Resources (ASNR) are used to control the Eco.System. Aging dictators control the cartel, supported by people who attend meetings to "see famous people". Elections are not viewed as desirable or possible in the Eco.System - "The Wrong People Might Get Elected". It is ironic, the Eco.System often claims credit for developments that were done to protect USA consumers FROM the Eco.System. Many USA Netizens work hard in normal business roles to AVOID the Eco.System. The vast majority of USA Internet companies avoid the Eco.System. The Eco.System attempts to co-opt key developments with their vast war-chests of money. Some groups succumb to the bribes. The W3C is one example. Tim has entered the picture using Bob, Carol, & TED. ICANN-IANA and ISOC-IETF have systematically delayed and derailed competition as they have grown their non-profit empire to billions of dollars and million dollar executive compensation packages. The lack of Term-Limits has allowed individuals to become career Internet politicians. Jaw-dropping compensation packages and non-profit war chests of cash reserves are used by the Eco.System players to dominate Internet Governance. American citizens have been openly threatened with death by the ISOC-IETF Thugs, who surround the IANA as a protection force. Recently, the U.S. Government, via NTIA, has announced their intention to distance themselves from the Legacy ICANN IANA ISOC Internet. This Diplomatic move has confused many American consumers. Most Americans are not aware of who runs their Internet [and from where??]. The ICANN-IANA ISOC leaders have recently openly joined with South American leaders. Latin America has a long history of some of the most corrupt telecom and social regimes on the planet. Bases have also been opened in Turkey and Singapore. The Eco.System Cartel claims to be "international" and immune from USA laws and scrutiny. It is ironic that the Eco.System finds much of its deep political support from CHINA and the corrupt regimes of AFRICA. Africans fall all over themselves rushing to the next Face-2-Face Meetings (Talk Shops) run by Self-Appointed Napoleans. Wisely, the U.S. Congress has directed the NTIA to lead the construction of a new Internet, called FirstNET. Federal funding is being allocated to States that step forward to help. The State of Colorado has landed the Technical Headquarters for FirstNet. The State of Virginia has been selected to handle the FirstNet Administrative Headquarters. FEMA Regions have been suggested for organizing FirstNet. FirstNET does not directly and daily serve all Netizens. A NEW USA Domestic Internet (SecondNET) is still needed. Netizens in the USA need to rely on an Internet they can trust. One plan calls for FOUR-State Regions, called SuperStates, to act as the major Hubs for the USA SecondNET. Sixteen SuperStates would form the basic structure for the USA DOMESTIC Internet. Since FirstNet plans to leverage existing network facilities, FirstNET would be one of the first customers for the USA DOMESTIC SecondNET. Elected US Senators, would automatically be appointed as the leaders of SecondNET. As the Attorney General of the United States of America, you have the difficult task of helping Americans protect themselves from the Cyber Bullies who control the Internet. This is very similar to trying to protect American citizens living along the border of Mexico. It is very hard to sort out and neutralize, the Cyber Bullies. The design and construction of a SecondNET companion to FirstNET will help to provide a more robust framework for the USA Internet. I hope that you support the FirstNET and SecondNET movements. I also hope that you remain vigilant about who is claiming to represent the US Justice Department and/or the FBI. Joe Concerned Citizen State of ____________ P.S. The ISOC IANA Eco.System is not going away. They are rapidly moving away from the USA to International venues, they can exploit. They advocate splitting the Internet with their IPv6 technology. The USA can protect itself with a unified solution. The USA is a Republic, not a Democracy, and certainly not a MultiStakeholder Street Gang. The Republic of States and SuperStates collectively designing, building and operating a NEW USA Domestic FirstNET and SecondNET will help to protect consumers and visitors to our CyberSpace. =============================================================== "This is a temporary list to be used as the mechanism for collecting public feedback on the IANA stewardship transition." @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r <http://twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r>
On Oct 24, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert:
It will depend: if the final option is to keep the function under the ICANN umbrella, then my understanding is that ICANN will keep financing it. On the other hand, if it is moved outside ICANN, then i presume it can be supported by all entities requiring its services.
-ed
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org <mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org>> wrote: Curious if the question of how the "new" IANA would be financed has been asked ?
Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship>
-- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
Hi, The issue of financing the new IANA was addressed in the IGP paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2408226) in very much the same way Eduardo suggests. I also think it sounds pretty reasonable. If current financing of IANA comes from the revenues accrued by ICANN from domain name registrations and paid by TLD registries, then that portion of the revenue used to finance IANA now can be redirected to whatever the new IANA might be. Thanks. Amr On Oct 24, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert:
It will depend: if the final option is to keep the function under the ICANN umbrella, then my understanding is that ICANN will keep financing it. On the other hand, if it is moved outside ICANN, then i presume it can be supported by all entities requiring its services.
-ed
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote: Curious if the question of how the "new" IANA would be financed has been asked ?
Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I think in the case of using the same funding sources that it currently has within ICANN that, it would be important to structure it so as those funds would be payed directly to the IANA entity directly and not via revenue directed from within ICANN. The separation would be needed for accountability and to pre-empt any conflict of interest in my opinion. James On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:45, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> wrote: Hi, The issue of financing the new IANA was addressed in the IGP paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2408226) in very much the same way Eduardo suggests. I also think it sounds pretty reasonable. If current financing of IANA comes from the revenues accrued by ICANN from domain name registrations and paid by TLD registries, then that portion of the revenue used to finance IANA now can be redirected to whatever the new IANA might be. Thanks. Amr On Oct 24, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> wrote: Robert: It will depend: if the final option is to keep the function under the ICANN umbrella, then my understanding is that ICANN will keep financing it. On the other hand, if it is moved outside ICANN, then i presume it can be supported by all entities requiring its services. -ed On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org<mailto:rguerra@privaterra.org>> wrote: Curious if the question of how the "new" IANA would be financed has been asked ? Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
James: This goes in line with Avri's comments about "separatibity". -ed On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:23 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I think in the case of using the same funding sources that it currently has within ICANN that, it would be important to structure it so as those funds would be payed directly to the IANA entity directly and not via revenue directed from within ICANN. The separation would be needed for accountability and to pre-empt any conflict of interest in my opinion.
James
On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:45, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
The issue of financing the new IANA was addressed in the IGP paper ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2408226) in very much the same way Eduardo suggests. I also think it sounds pretty reasonable. If current financing of IANA comes from the revenues accrued by ICANN from domain name registrations and paid by TLD registries, then that portion of the revenue used to finance IANA now can be redirected to whatever the new IANA might be.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 24, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert:
It will depend: if the final option is to keep the function under the ICANN umbrella, then my understanding is that ICANN will keep financing it. On the other hand, if it is moved outside ICANN, then i presume it can be supported by all entities requiring its services.
-ed
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote:
Curious if the question of how the "new" IANA would be financed has been asked ?
Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ 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
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Hi, On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:23 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I think in the case of using the same funding sources that it currently has within ICANN that, it would be important to structure it so as those funds would be payed directly to the IANA entity directly and not via revenue directed from within ICANN. The separation would be needed for accountability and to pre-empt any conflict of interest in my opinion.
Couldn’t agree more. Thanks. Amr
+ 1
On Oct 24, 2014, at 6:45 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:23 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I think in the case of using the same funding sources that it currently has within ICANN that, it would be important to structure it so as those funds would be payed directly to the IANA entity directly and not via revenue directed from within ICANN. The separation would be needed for accountability and to pre-empt any conflict of interest in my opinion.
Couldn’t agree more.
Thanks.
Amr
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
Hmm... just to further understand the practicality of this. So the new IANA (names part of the functions) will be funded by the registries right. Well i have a few set of questions below: - How does/will something like newgTLD process look like? I.e will ICANN accredit or the new entity? - What exactly will the new entity be doing? - What will ICANN's new role be? I am assuming PDP (based on IGP) if that is the case it means the new entity will work on the ICANN's community developed policy right? And how does that improve accountability. - Who determine what staff to employ for the new entity? I presume there will then be a need for board of Directors, bylaw, membership etc. - Is the new entity going to be established in any country? - What will the composition of such new entities board look like? cctld, gtld, end-users? - Who will generally oversee the accountability of the new entity? - Who/what determines how the funds is shared between ICANN and the new entity? Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 24 Oct 2014 14:55, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I think in the case of using the same funding sources that it currently has within ICANN that, it would be important to structure it so as those funds would be payed directly to the IANA entity directly and not via revenue directed from within ICANN. The separation would be needed for accountability and to pre-empt any conflict of interest in my opinion.
James
On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:45, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
The issue of financing the new IANA was addressed in the IGP paper ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2408226) in very much the same way Eduardo suggests. I also think it sounds pretty reasonable. If current financing of IANA comes from the revenues accrued by ICANN from domain name registrations and paid by TLD registries, then that portion of the revenue used to finance IANA now can be redirected to whatever the new IANA might be.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 24, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert:
It will depend: if the final option is to keep the function under the ICANN umbrella, then my understanding is that ICANN will keep financing it. On the other hand, if it is moved outside ICANN, then i presume it can be supported by all entities requiring its services.
-ed
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote:
Curious if the question of how the "new" IANA would be financed has been asked ?
Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ 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
Hi, Hardly could you get anything in practice whilst theorizing on issues, but until you begin tackling them in reality. I think, the option of having new IANA (names) separately should be viewed afar financing only, but structuring the entity. Regards, Wale On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm... just to further understand the practicality of this. So the new IANA (names part of the functions) will be funded by the registries right. Well i have a few set of questions below:
- How does/will something like newgTLD process look like? I.e will ICANN accredit or the new entity? - What exactly will the new entity be doing? - What will ICANN's new role be? I am assuming PDP (based on IGP) if that is the case it means the new entity will work on the ICANN's community developed policy right? And how does that improve accountability. - Who determine what staff to employ for the new entity? I presume there will then be a need for board of Directors, bylaw, membership etc. - Is the new entity going to be established in any country? - What will the composition of such new entities board look like? cctld, gtld, end-users? - Who will generally oversee the accountability of the new entity? - Who/what determines how the funds is shared between ICANN and the new entity?
Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 24 Oct 2014 14:55, "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I think in the case of using the same funding sources that it currently has within ICANN that, it would be important to structure it so as those funds would be payed directly to the IANA entity directly and not via revenue directed from within ICANN. The separation would be needed for accountability and to pre-empt any conflict of interest in my opinion.
James
On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:45, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
The issue of financing the new IANA was addressed in the IGP paper ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2408226) in very much the same way Eduardo suggests. I also think it sounds pretty reasonable. If current financing of IANA comes from the revenues accrued by ICANN from domain name registrations and paid by TLD registries, then that portion of the revenue used to finance IANA now can be redirected to whatever the new IANA might be.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 24, 2014, at 6:16 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
Robert:
It will depend: if the final option is to keep the function under the ICANN umbrella, then my understanding is that ICANN will keep financing it. On the other hand, if it is moved outside ICANN, then i presume it can be supported by all entities requiring its services.
-ed
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> wrote:
Curious if the question of how the "new" IANA would be financed has been asked ?
Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Seun, I can’t claim particular expertise, but nonetheless, some thoughts in-line to your questions: On Oct 25, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm... just to further understand the practicality of this. So the new IANA (names part of the functions) will be funded by the registries right. Well i have a few set of questions below:
- How does/will something like newgTLD process look like? I.e will ICANN accredit or the new entity?
Doesn’t ICANN already do this? Although IANA does the actual delegation for gTLDs, ICANN receives, processes and decides on the applications that determines wether a registry (new or already existing) is eligible for a new gTLD. This is done using the new gTLD applicant guidebook as a reference guiding the process.
- What exactly will the new entity be doing?
The way I see it, the new entity will not be a new IANA, but a replacement for the current IANA steward (i.e.: the NTIA). Creating a new steward does not necessarily require the creation of a new IANA. What it will be doing is what we need to collectively figure out and propose to the ICG, but that would surely include awarding the IANA contract to a contractor, making it the principle in that agreement.
- What will ICANN's new role be? I am assuming PDP (based on IGP) if that is the case it means the new entity will work on the ICANN's community developed policy right? And how does that improve accountability.
Policy development for gTLDs is not a new role for ICANN. It’s what its current role is, and will continue to be. The accountability of ICANN’s PDP for gTLDs and the accountability of ICANN’s management of the IANA function are two different things. I am not assuming that IANA needs to be separated from ICANN as a result of the process we are currently in. It should, however, be a possibility in the event that ICANN attempts to abuse its management of IANA, which constitutes the accountability issues we need to discuss. This will also largely depend on the broader ICANN accountability issues, which will be discussed in another CWG.
- Who determine what staff to employ for the new entity? I presume there will then be a need for board of Directors, bylaw, membership etc.
If by “new entity”, you mean the new stewardship/oversight body/council/or DROC, then that new entity should probably decide what it requires in terms of staff support. I don’t foresee a need for a board of directors, but I may be wrong in case a BoDs is required in the event incorporation is. Membership and who develops the bylaws should probably be proposed by us (this CWG). If by “new entity”, you mean the new IANA, I would assume that whoever is the contractor will make these decisions, wether the contractor is ICANN or any other org.
- Is the new entity going to be established in any country?
Wouldn’t it have to be?
- What will the composition of such new entities board look like? cctld, gtld, end-users?
Is this the same question as the one above?
- Who will generally oversee the accountability of the new entity?
I would hope that the accountability of the new entity is overseen by the communities that appoint representatives to its decision-making body. I suspect that both cc and gTLD registries will play an important, although not exclusive, role in this.
- Who/what determines how the funds is shared between ICANN and the new entity?
I believe that finances shouldn’t be shared, but divided. It makes the possibility of separability (in the event that it is required) more straight forward. The new stewardship org could get its funding from fees collected from registries similar to the registry-level transaction fees collected by ICANN based on its own budget requirements. These fees could also be deducted from the same fees ICANN currently collects from registries, resulting in little to no increase of levies on them. I believe ICANN’s draft budget for FY15 placed the total amount required for the delivery of the IANA functions at about USD 9.5 million. My two cents on these, but suspect there are aspects I haven’t considered. More thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. Amr
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi Seun,
I can’t claim particular expertise, but nonetheless, some thoughts in-line to your questions:
On Oct 25, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm... just to further understand the practicality of this. So the new IANA (names part of the functions) will be funded by the registries right. Well i have a few set of questions below:
- How does/will something like newgTLD process look like? I.e will ICANN accredit or the new entity?
Doesn’t ICANN already do this?
Yes it does and i am not talking about the present, i am talking about the future without the NTIA. All my questions are some practicalities i think we need to clarify from if there is indeed going to be a new IANA, In respect to the role of ICANN vis the new IANA (names function)
- What exactly will the new entity be doing?
The way I see it, the new entity will not be a new IANA, but a replacement for the current IANA steward (i.e.: the NTIA). Creating a new steward does not necessarily require the creation of a new IANA. What it will be doing is what we need to collectively figure out and propose to the ICG, but that would surely include awarding the IANA contract to a contractor, making it the principle in that agreement.
Okay if its not going to be the new IANA then i think i will pause my comments right here and ask Roberto to clarify what he meant by new IANA funding? My interpretation was that he was referring to the names IANA functions taken out from ICANN and not necessarily the ability to award contract as you have indicated above. If its the contracting (which is not necessarily what the IGP proposes), Then we need to face some realities: - I am not a lawyer but i don't see how a consortium of any SO/AC within ICANN can award a contract. - A contracting body as it stands will most likely need to have some governmental involvement in one way or the other (!=NTIA requirement) - There may then be other issue of who oversights on the new contracting body - The ultimate puzzle will we be asking what we will be solving by moving from a contracting regime to another one that is yet to be in formation Just a few cents and i am sure there are other perspectives Cheers! Regards
- What will ICANN's new role be? I am assuming PDP (based on IGP) if that is the case it means the new entity will work on the ICANN's community developed policy right? And how does that improve accountability.
Policy development for gTLDs is not a new role for ICANN. It’s what its current role is, and will continue to be. The accountability of ICANN’s PDP for gTLDs and the accountability of ICANN’s management of the IANA function are two different things. I am not assuming that IANA needs to be separated from ICANN as a result of the process we are currently in. It should, however, be a possibility in the event that ICANN attempts to abuse its management of IANA, which constitutes the accountability issues we need to discuss. This will also largely depend on the broader ICANN accountability issues, which will be discussed in another CWG.
- Who determine what staff to employ for the new entity? I presume there will then be a need for board of Directors, bylaw, membership etc.
If by “new entity”, you mean the new stewardship/oversight body/council/or DROC, then that new entity should probably decide what it requires in terms of staff support. I don’t foresee a need for a board of directors, but I may be wrong in case a BoDs is required in the event incorporation is. Membership and who develops the bylaws should probably be proposed by us (this CWG).
If by “new entity”, you mean the new IANA, I would assume that whoever is the contractor will make these decisions, wether the contractor is ICANN or any other org.
- Is the new entity going to be established in any country?
Wouldn’t it have to be?
- What will the composition of such new entities board look like? cctld, gtld, end-users?
Is this the same question as the one above?
- Who will generally oversee the accountability of the new entity?
I would hope that the accountability of the new entity is overseen by the communities that appoint representatives to its decision-making body. I suspect that both cc and gTLD registries will play an important, although not exclusive, role in this.
- Who/what determines how the funds is shared between ICANN and the new entity?
I believe that finances shouldn’t be shared, but divided. It makes the possibility of separability (in the event that it is required) more straight forward. The new stewardship org could get its funding from fees collected from registries similar to the registry-level transaction fees collected by ICANN based on its own budget requirements. These fees could also be deducted from the same fees ICANN currently collects from registries, resulting in little to no increase of levies on them. I believe ICANN’s draft budget for FY15 placed the total amount required for the delivery of the IANA functions at about USD 9.5 million.
My two cents on these, but suspect there are aspects I haven’t considered. More thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Amr
_______________________________________________ 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 !
Good evening: Allow me to come back into this discussion: 1. IANA must remain a single, integral service. Oversight and accountability (O&A) can be done once. There is no scope for achieving O&A on the basis of several distinct entities and procedures. 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 present. 3. Thus the question of the financing of the new IANA looks like a red-herring. No. Regards CW On 25 Oct 2014, at 15:51, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote: Hi Seun,
I can’t claim particular expertise, but nonetheless, some thoughts in-line to your questions:
On Oct 25, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm... just to further understand the practicality of this. So the new IANA (names part of the functions) will be funded by the registries right. Well i have a few set of questions below:
- How does/will something like newgTLD process look like? I.e will ICANN accredit or the new entity?
Doesn’t ICANN already do this?
Yes it does and i am not talking about the present, i am talking about the future without the NTIA. All my questions are some practicalities i think we need to clarify from if there is indeed going to be a new IANA, In respect to the role of ICANN vis the new IANA (names function)
- What exactly will the new entity be doing?
The way I see it, the new entity will not be a new IANA, but a replacement for the current IANA steward (i.e.: the NTIA). Creating a new steward does not necessarily require the creation of a new IANA. What it will be doing is what we need to collectively figure out and propose to the ICG, but that would surely include awarding the IANA contract to a contractor, making it the principle in that agreement.
Okay if its not going to be the new IANA then i think i will pause my comments right here and ask Roberto to clarify what he meant by new IANA funding? My interpretation was that he was referring to the names IANA functions taken out from ICANN and not necessarily the ability to award contract as you have indicated above.
If its the contracting (which is not necessarily what the IGP proposes), Then we need to face some realities:
- I am not a lawyer but i don't see how a consortium of any SO/AC within ICANN can award a contract. - A contracting body as it stands will most likely need to have some governmental involvement in one way or the other (!=NTIA requirement) - There may then be other issue of who oversights on the new contracting body - The ultimate puzzle will we be asking what we will be solving by moving from a contracting regime to another one that is yet to be in formation
Just a few cents and i am sure there are other perspectives
Cheers!
Regards
- What will ICANN's new role be? I am assuming PDP (based on IGP) if that is the case it means the new entity will work on the ICANN's community developed policy right? And how does that improve accountability.
Policy development for gTLDs is not a new role for ICANN. It’s what its current role is, and will continue to be. The accountability of ICANN’s PDP for gTLDs and the accountability of ICANN’s management of the IANA function are two different things. I am not assuming that IANA needs to be separated from ICANN as a result of the process we are currently in. It should, however, be a possibility in the event that ICANN attempts to abuse its management of IANA, which constitutes the accountability issues we need to discuss. This will also largely depend on the broader ICANN accountability issues, which will be discussed in another CWG.
- Who determine what staff to employ for the new entity? I presume there will then be a need for board of Directors, bylaw, membership etc.
If by “new entity”, you mean the new stewardship/oversight body/council/or DROC, then that new entity should probably decide what it requires in terms of staff support. I don’t foresee a need for a board of directors, but I may be wrong in case a BoDs is required in the event incorporation is. Membership and who develops the bylaws should probably be proposed by us (this CWG).
If by “new entity”, you mean the new IANA, I would assume that whoever is the contractor will make these decisions, wether the contractor is ICANN or any other org.
- Is the new entity going to be established in any country?
Wouldn’t it have to be?
- What will the composition of such new entities board look like? cctld, gtld, end-users?
Is this the same question as the one above?
- Who will generally oversee the accountability of the new entity?
I would hope that the accountability of the new entity is overseen by the communities that appoint representatives to its decision-making body. I suspect that both cc and gTLD registries will play an important, although not exclusive, role in this.
- Who/what determines how the funds is shared between ICANN and the new entity?
I believe that finances shouldn’t be shared, but divided. It makes the possibility of separability (in the event that it is required) more straight forward. The new stewardship org could get its funding from fees collected from registries similar to the registry-level transaction fees collected by ICANN based on its own budget requirements. These fees could also be deducted from the same fees ICANN currently collects from registries, resulting in little to no increase of levies on them. I believe ICANN’s draft budget for FY15 placed the total amount required for the delivery of the IANA functions at about USD 9.5 million.
My two cents on these, but suspect there are aspects I haven’t considered. More thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Amr
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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<mailto: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
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
The IANA functions are only cost free in theory, as Amr states below I believe ICANN’s draft budget for FY15 placed the total amount required for the delivery of the IANA functions at about USD 9.5 million. The IANA contract is awarded at a token figure of 1 dollar at the moment is my understanding.
From that we can extrapolate that ICANN is finding the IANA functions through its current revenue streams just not as a specific line item. So the proposal would only be that there would be no cost increase to the users, just a redistribution of current costs that are currently paid to ICANN, just to subdivide those funds and send the appropriate portion to an independent IANA entity should that be required.
- James On 26 Oct 2014, at 04:05, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi , and thanks for the clarification I don’t think I ever said IANA functions are cost free - only that ICANN now picks up the tab - however that appears in the ICANN budget. So the original concern of James is a description of the current situation - public interest functions are funded NOW by registries and registrars. The issue, therefore, is whether that is a current concern and if, so, suggestions for an alternative response. Holly On 26 Oct 2014, at 9:11 pm, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
The IANA functions are only cost free in theory, as Amr states below
I believe ICANN’s draft budget for FY15 placed the total amount required for the delivery of the IANA functions at about USD 9.5 million.
The IANA contract is awarded at a token figure of 1 dollar at the moment is my understanding.
From that we can extrapolate that ICANN is finding the IANA functions through its current revenue streams just not as a specific line item. So the proposal would only be that there would be no cost increase to the users, just a redistribution of current costs that are currently paid to ICANN, just to subdivide those funds and send the appropriate portion to an independent IANA entity should that be required.
- 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
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
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
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 !
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson 1. IANA must remain a single, integral service. MM: What do you mean "remain"? The names, numbers and protocol parts are almost completely unrelated and are performed by different people. Oversight and accountability (O&A) can be done once. There is no scope for achieving O&A on the basis of several distinct entities and procedures. MM: Oversight and accountability should be tied to the entities who use IANA, and those are in fact different entities and involve different procedures. O&A might actually work better if it is divided. And what if one part of the functions is performed well and other other poorly? Unification makes accountability more difficult. 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 present. MM: TANSTAAFL. That's the acronym for "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Currently, registries and registrars are paying for IANA services via ICANN fees, and they collect their revenues via end user registrations. The issue is not whether the functions are "cost-free" but to whom the costs are allocated and how. Whether current arrangements are optimal or not is a matter for discussion and debate. If Mr. Wilkinson thinks the current arrangement is optimal he must make a logical and fact-based case for it, it is not useful to issue dogmatic pronouncements that tell us what "must" happen.
Milton It is fair to say that gTLD registries and ICANN accredited registries " Currently, registries and registrars are paying for IANA services via ICANN fees, and they collect their revenues via end user registrations.", but this isn't necessarily true for ccTLDs with the exception of a few ccTLDs that signed Agreements with ICANN. In 2006, ICANN commenced a process of formalizing their relationship with ccTLD managers through an Accountability Framework (AF), which could take the form of an exchange of letters or a more formal document (both of which are voluntary and not binding). These documents are instructive in that they identify the services ICANN provides to the ccTLD and commitments from the ccTLD in return. Many of the ccTLDs commit to pay a voluntary contribution to ICANN as the organization that reliably performs the IANA function; others commit to pay a voluntary contribution to ICANN's cost of operations. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctlds-2012-02-25-en I know things have moved on since 2006, when this program was started and the ccNSO has come to an understanding with ICANN with regard to fees (and I look to Bart Boswinkel or others to provide an update), but the language in many of the AF documents remains that the contribution is made on the basis that ICANN reliably performs the IANA function. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin@ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, 26 October 2014 9:10 AM To: Christopher Wilkinson Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Financing the new IANA From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson 1. IANA must remain a single, integral service. MM: What do you mean "remain"? The names, numbers and protocol parts are almost completely unrelated and are performed by different people. Oversight and accountability (O&A) can be done once. There is no scope for achieving O&A on the basis of several distinct entities and procedures. MM: Oversight and accountability should be tied to the entities who use IANA, and those are in fact different entities and involve different procedures. O&A might actually work better if it is divided. And what if one part of the functions is performed well and other other poorly? Unification makes accountability more difficult. 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 present. MM: TANSTAAFL. That's the acronym for "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Currently, registries and registrars are paying for IANA services via ICANN fees, and they collect their revenues via end user registrations. The issue is not whether the functions are "cost-free" but to whom the costs are allocated and how. Whether current arrangements are optimal or not is a matter for discussion and debate. If Mr. Wilkinson thinks the current arrangement is optimal he must make a logical and fact-based case for it, it is not useful to issue dogmatic pronouncements that tell us what "must" happen.
Dear Donna, There was indeed a lot of work done by the ccNSO Finance WG regarding ccTLD voluntary contributions to Icann. You will find details in the final report available here : http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/finance-wg.htm Best Mathieu Le 27/10/2014 19:07, Donna Austin a écrit :
I know things have moved on since 2006, when this program was started and the ccNSO has come to an understanding with ICANN with regard to fees (and I look to Bart Boswinkel or others to provide an update), but the language in many of the AF documents remains that the contribution is made on the basis that ICANN reliably performs the IANA function.
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: 01 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr ***************************** ATTENTION : L'Afnic a déménagé le 31 mars 2014 ! Notre nouvelle adresse est : Afnic - Immeuble Le Stephenson - 1, rue Stephenson - 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux
Thanks for referring to the ccNSO Finance WG, Mathieu. Yes, the Finance WG considered many scenarios indeed, and we appreciated that the key cost that ICANN incurs for ccTLDs is the IANA service. It was difficult to come up with one-size-fit-all contribution because ccTLD sizes (in terms of domain name registration figures) differ largely, but the conclusion was that ccTLDs should be encouraged to contribute to ICANN across different bands. Regards, Vika From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date: Monday 27 October 2014 8:30 PM To: <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Financing the new IANA Dear Donna, There was indeed a lot of work done by the ccNSO Finance WG regarding ccTLD voluntary contributions to Icann. You will find details in the final report available here : http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/finance-wg.htm Best Mathieu Le 27/10/2014 19:07, Donna Austin a écrit :
I know things have moved on since 2006, when this program was started and the ccNSO has come to an understanding with ICANN with regard to fees (and I look to Bart Boswinkel or others to provide an update), but the language in many of the AF documents remains that the contribution is made on the basis that ICANN reliably performs the IANA function.
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: 01 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr ***************************** ATTENTION : L'Afnic a déménagé le 31 mars 2014 ! Notre nouvelle adresse est : Afnic - Immeuble Le Stephenson - 1, rue Stephenson - 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (14)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Carlton Samuels -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Donna Austin -
Eduardo Diaz -
Holly Raiche -
James Gannon -
Kris Seeburn -
Mathieu Weill -
Milton L Mueller -
Olawale Bakare -
Robert Guerra -
Seun Ojedeji -
Vika Mpisane