<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">1+ <div><br></div><div>John More</div><div>Washington Dc Chapter</div><div><br><div><div>On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, CW Mail <<a href="mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu">mail@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><base href="x-msg://1287/"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Good afternoon:</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Further to Kathy Brown's messages of 22
and 23 March, I would like to make a few comments and suggestions as
to how the IANA 'globalisation' might proceed, and what could be the
role of the Internet Soceity. These are born of a certain experience
in several capacities in relation to Internet Governance and ICANN
since the 1990's and from more recent observations.</p>
<ol>
<li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">The NTIA announcement and the ISOC
staff 'initial proposal' do imply that the globalisation of IANA
should take place within the multistakeholder context of ICANN. That
would indeed appear to be the only viable direction to go, but it
comes with several constraints and conditions. It is also a 'case to
be made': that option is by no means universally held.<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">ICANN itself needs a thorough
reformation, particularly with regard to the balance of power within
the 'bottom-up' multistakeholder policy development process. If the
logical unity of the ICANN and IANA roles is to be maintained, then
ICANN itself has to be credible as the global custodian of the
Internet Naming and Addressing system and related policies. <br><br>At
present that is quite a stretch, not least because of the
unsatisfactory nature of the decisions leading up to the on-going
new gTLD process and the resulting controversies.<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Consequently, the reform of ICANN
and the IANA transfer will have to take place hand-in-hand. Not
least because – other than among the commercially financed
operators – there are too few resources and not enough voluntary time to
conduct two or more parallel reform processes. Furthermore, it must
be clear from the start that the IANA transfer relates to the whole
of the IANA-related functions, including the root zone management
functions. Otherwise from an international point of view, the game
is not worth the candle.<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Counter proposals already
emanating from the IGP and InternetNZ envisage creating additional
'entities' in the name of 'structural separation' of ICANN and IANA.
They also rather down-play the oversight role of the GAC. That would
be quite unrealistic.<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Furthermore, the IGP proposal
would envisage the IANA function controlled by a new entity “DNSA”
which would be dominated by the Registries and Registrars. This idea
has a precedent. In 2009, the Technology Policy Institute was
already arguing that ICANN itself should be controlled by the
contracting parties, i.e. The Registries and Registrars. That would
evidently deny the multistakeholder structure which must remain open
to all stakeholders, including users' interests.<br><br>However,
recent experience with the new gTLD programme strongly suggests that
the influence of the Registries and Registrars within ICANN is
already too great and that other stakeholders, including
governments, have not been able to exercise effective
counter-vailing power.<br><br>The idea of confiding IANA to a
separate entity without effective oversight and controlled by
commercially interested parties, is unlikely to enjoy consensus.<br>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">In conclusion, recognising that
these reforms will continue over an extended period, it is essential
that the Internet Society itself ensures that it does support a fully multistakeholder process both internally and
externally. ISOC could contribute effectively to rebalancing
representation of user interests and civil society, on a permanent
basis, particularly through Chapters' membership, in several
relevant fora, including the IGF, MAG, ICANN and NETmundial.<br><br>Regards</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Christopher Wilkinson</p>
</li></ol><div><div>On 22 Mar 2014, at 11:39, Kathy Brown <<a href="mailto:brown@isoc.org">brown@isoc.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: inherit; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed<br>to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society<br>Chapter Portal (AMS):<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://portal.isoc.org/">https://portal.isoc.org</a></div></blockquote></div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed<br>to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society<br>Chapter Portal (AMS): <a href="https://portal.isoc.org">https://portal.isoc.org</a></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>