[Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] An initial proposal regarding IANA development

[Charles Oloo]

+1
-- 
Charles



On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:40 PM, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>wrote:

> Dear Seun Ojedeji and colleagues:
>
> Thankyou for your interest and support. I shall follow those carefully.
>
> (a) I shall probably not post more widely until i have had the opportunity
> to take on board these, and other comments and suggestions for improvements.
>
> (b) There are rather too many Lists claiming precedence in these matters.
> (At least half a dozen). To the point that I wonder whether ISOC really
> needs yet another one.
>
> Regards
>
> CW
>
>
> On 26 Mar 2014, at 20:02, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to most part of your contribution.
>
> However I think a contribution like this could be cross-posted to the
> ianatransition <ianatransition at icann.org>@ <ianatransition at icann.org>
> icann. <ianatransition at icann.org>org <ianatransition at icann.org> where
> contributions are being accepted by ICANN.
>
> Thanks.
> Cheers!
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 27 Mar 2014 02:29, "CW Mail" <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
>> Good afternoon:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>    1.
>>
>>    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.
>>     2.
>>
>>    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.
>>
>>    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.
>>     3.
>>
>>    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.
>>     4.
>>
>>    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.
>>     5.
>>
>>    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.
>>
>>    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.
>>
>>    The idea of confiding IANA to a separate entity without effective
>>    oversight and controlled by commercially interested parties, is unlikely to
>>    enjoy consensus.
>>     6.
>>
>>    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.
>>
>>    Regards
>>
>>    Christopher Wilkinson
>>
>> On 22 Mar 2014, at 11:39, Kathy Brown <brown at isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140327/4c3f8c9c/attachment.htm>