[Chapter-delegates] An initial proposal regarding IANA development

[bukhalidn]

+1

 

Nabil.

 

-----

Nabil Bukhalid

President

ISOC Lebanon

P.O.Box 113-6596
Hamra, Lebanon 

 

M: +961 (0)3 779116
E:  <mailto:nabil.bukhalid at isoc.org.lb> nabil.bukhalid at isoc.org.lb 

 

 <http://www.isoc.org.lb/> W .
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/ISOC-Lebanon/157181607638474> Fb .
<http://twitter.com/ISOCLebanon> T 

 

On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:29 PM, 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:





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140327/6b5c0d3e/attachment.htm>