[Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] [IANAxfer] An initial proposalregarding IANA development
Thomas Lowenhaupt
toml at communisphere.com
Thu Mar 27 17:44:20 PDT 2014
I recently posted "ICANN, the IANA Functions, and Accountability
<http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/blog/2014/03/24/icann-the-iana-functions-accountability/>"
on a closely related subject.
I'd sought guidance about the path to assure approval of the .nyc TLD
application vis a vis C.2.9.2.d of the IANA functions contract. As it
seemed intended to assure stakeholder engagement in the application's
development, I asked NTIA, ICANN, and IANA how the city of New York
might comply with this IANA function. I'm unsure if I found a screen
door, an open door, or no door. But the response indicated inadequate
implementation and oversight of the IANA functions.
Tom Lowenhaupt
On 3/27/2014 8:26 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> >>> [mailto: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
> <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>;
> >>> ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org <mailto: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 <mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>
> >>> Skype: carlos.raulg
> >>> +506 8335 2487 <tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel)
> >>> +506 4000 2000 <tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home)
> >>> +506 2290 3678 <tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax)
> >>> _____________________
> >>> Apartado 1571-1000
> >>> San Jose, COSTA RICA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> El 26/03/2014, a las 12:29, CW Mail
> <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140327/4974decd/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list