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

Thu Mar 27 17:31:37 PDT 2014

i think it is quite conceivable that no new institution is needed - what is
required is a process by which ICANN delivers on transparency and
accountability processes (note plural). When issues arise, there should be
recourse mechanisms and options in place. We have some, now, but I think
they could use some refinement and strengthening.

vint

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, "Carlos Raúl G." <carlosraulg at gmail.com>wrote:

> Then it's only about a separate/different oversight, I would guess?
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8335 2487
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El 27/03/2014, a las 18:26, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> escribió:
>
> 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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140327/0d12c200/attachment.htm>