[Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] An initial proposalregarding IANA development

Thu Mar 27 06:13:04 PDT 2014

I would suggest that in general, it is better to have a separation of roles since the technical an clerical sector made need to have oversight and from the policy-making sector.

John More

On Mar 27, 2014, at 7:37 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

> Carlos refers to a possible spin-off of the IANA function.  Indeed, some
> take the view that there should be structural separation of the policy
> making role currently performed by ICANN, and the technical and clerical
> operational role performed by IANA, see for example:
> 
>  http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/03/18/structural-separation-a-key-p
> rinciple-of-iana-globalization/
> 
> How do people on this list feel about that?  Should there be structural
> separation, or not?
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org
> [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org]On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl
> Gutiérrez
> Sent: mercredi, 26. mars 2014 23:00
> To: CW Mail
> Cc: ISOC Chapter Delegates; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org;
> ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] [Chapter-delegates] An initial
> proposalregarding IANA development
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Z
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher,
> 
> 
> I really like the general message and the integrated approach you are
> looking for. The problem right now is not only the number of ongoing lists,
> meetings, etc., but I liked it very much so here my first very positive
> reaction and comments to your valuable ideas:
> 
> 
> From my limited experience of almost 3 years in GAC and one grueling year in
> ICANNs ATRT2, I certainly think that we cannot go on thinking in terms of
> marginal improvements and changes. But we have to start somewhere and the
> IANA is as good as any starting point to start and I strongly hope it does
> not get slowed down by other imperfections in the Ecosystem.
> Independently of the IANA horizon, it makes a lot of sense to to give more
> responsibility to RIRs and registries, if they only had some common
> accountability and transparency standards. They don´t need to be the same
> standards< as ICANN´s, but they should be high, common to all of them, and
> widely discussed and agreed to by the community (as opposed to be imposed in
> AoC type of agreements). Today they really miss the mark, which is worrisome
> since they are clearly and more or less closely linked to the for profit
> segment. Our apter has made a submission to Net Mundial in this direction
> ICANN certainly is a process based entity, that could be analyzed and
> organized differently as the business has grown so much. The fist step was
> to create a subsidiary for the gTLD program. The second is the probable
> spin-off of the IANA function. From whats left, the bottom-up policy
> development process could be more clearly separated from implementation, as
> far as the compliancy of Registries and registrars go. But again we have
> different standards for gTLDs as compared to ccTLDs, to give just another
> example- But such an exercise require carefully moderated workshops at
> least, no just brainstorming in mailing lists. And yes, it should go hand in
> hand with the globalization of the IANA function but under its own charter.
> I also think it sounds like an excellent role for ISOC, if it wasn´t so busy
> with other issues than the purely technical ones (IETF, IAB) like the IGF
> getting more teeth in recommendations, and having an arms length relation
> with an, albeit non-profit, still an important Registry hoping to play also
> a novel role in the gTLD space (which I fully support by the way).
> 
> 
> The whole I* has to do and deliver a lot of thinking. Montevideo was a great
> first step. In my eyes more important a milestone than the now hotter IANA
> issue. But it also has to jointly define a (MONTEVIDEO LIKE) space for this
> high level rethinking and avoid starting a competition to the already
> crowded ongoing high level panel and meetings competition. Moreover, ISOC
> should guarantee a WIDER participation of the non/technical, non/commercial
> and no/governmental community in such a STRUCTURED space over time. And I’m
> sure many new good ideas would come out of this efforts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> 
> 
> 
> 
> email: crg at isoc-cr.org
> Skype: carlos.raulg
> +506 8335 2487 (cel)
> +506 4000 2000 (home)
> +506 2290 3678 (fax)
> _____________________
> Apartado 1571-1000
> San Jose, COSTA RICA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> El 26/03/2014, a las 12:29, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> escribió:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.