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

Thu Mar 27 17:26:11 PDT 2014

there is already separation within ICANN. IANA is isolated from
policymaking practices.

vint

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:14 PM, ICT Barrett <ictbarrett at gmail.com> wrote:

> Richard
>
> I think there should be a separation as IANA performs their function well
> and the stability of the internet from an infrastructure point of view
> shouldn't get affected by the policy making process ( taking note that once
> policy is decided it would impact on operations ). But I don't this we
> should mess with IANAs technical operational processes now.
>
> Cheers
> Kerry-Ann
>
> > On Mar 28, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Tamer Rizk <trizk at inficron.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > All these suggestions are great, but I think we need greater
> organization of and visibility into community consensus on the diverse
> opinions voiced here. After all, we are an Internet savvy community, and
> what better way to effectively discuss the governance of the Internet than
> by automating consensus using the Internet?
> >
> > Is there any capacity to automatically export the conversations within
> these lists using something like:
> >
> > https://github.com/fdietz/jwz_threading
> > and/or
> > http://www.mailpiler.org
> >
> > to an online comment voting system similar to Reddit, such that
> consensus floats to the top? Given the open source tools available, doing
> so should take a programmer a focused week and would be extremely
> beneficial to facilitating the conversation on transition.
> >
> > This is, by definition, enabling the process by which to create the
> process.
> >
> > Tamer
> >
> > John More wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> IANAxfer mailing list
> >> IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org
> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140327/9cd3ccbf/attachment.htm>