<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Hi !<br></div>Great job Milton !<br>+1<br></div>Cheers !<br></div>-Olevie-<br> <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-02-15 20:01 GMT+00:00 Robin Gross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hello Norbert,<div><br></div><div>Yes, I agree with you and Milton.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Robin</div><div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Milton and all on the NCSG-DISCUSS list,<br>
<br>
I agree with the text from Milton, including the wording as it is. I
am open for clarifying re-wordings, but not with softening the
statements.<br>
<br>
<br>
Norbert Klein<br>
Cambodia<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 02/10/2015 03:15 PM, Milton L
Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><p class="MsoNormal">Dear members:<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">The CWG on IANA transition is going to
collecting community feedback on the IANA transition this
week. This exercise is very important because it will
influence the CWG’s development of a proposal.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">I have gone through the 9 questions they
prepared and answered them, you all may be interested in my
answers. Most of these answers will probably be
uncontroversial on this list, but there may be some room for
debate so I would like to get your feedback on my proposed
answers<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><span>1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>Do you believe that the
transition from the NTIA should happen (Please provide the
reasons for your answer)?
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Yes. Unilateral US government control of
the IANA functions contract is not compatible with the
multistakeholder model<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><span>2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>Are you comfortable with ICANN
as policy-maker also being the IANA operator without the
benefit of external oversight?
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">No. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><span>3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>Should registries, as the
primary customers of the IANA functions, have more of a say as
to which transition proposal is acceptable?
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">The NTIA has made it clear that all major
stakeholder groups, including registries, need to accept the
transition proposal. Registries should have an influential
role in any oversight mechanisms of the naming-related IANA
functions, but need not have a privileged role in the
selection of proposals. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><span>4.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>What does functional separation
of IANA from ICANN mean to you? (this is not referring to
having another operator than ICANN performing the IANA
functions but rather the internal separation between ICANN and
IANA in the context where ICANN is the IANA operator) <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Functional separation means that IANA is a
department of ICANN under the same management as the rest of
ICANN and without a clearly separated budget or mission.
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><span>5.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>Do you believe the IANA function
is adequately separated from ICANN under the current
arrangements (internal separation)?
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">No. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p><span>6.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span>In considering the key factors
(such as security and stability, ease of separating the IANA
function from ICANN, quality of services, accountability
mechanisms etc.) for evaluating the various transition
proposals what importance would you give to the ability to
separate IANA from ICANN (separability) vs. the other factors?
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Very high importance, because separability
will have major beneficial effects on all the other factors,
such as accountability, quality of service, security and
stability. Separability increases the leverage of the
customers of IANA over performance, security and stability.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">7. Given the IANA functions
could be separated from ICANN do you believe it would be
important for the community to obtain from ICANN on an annual
basis the costs for operating IANA including overhead costs?<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Yes, very important.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">o Would it be important to separate out the
costs associated with address and protocol functions?
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Less so than the IANA department as a whole<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">8. Could there be unforeseen
impacts relative to selecting a new operator for the IANA
functions vs the ICANN policy role (should ICANN determine
that there will be another round of new gTLDs, how could it
ensure that the new operator would accept this)?<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">No, a new operator could be contractually
bound to accept changes from ICANN that were the product of
legitimate policy making processes.
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">9. Are there other transition
models which the CWG should be exploring?
<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Yes, the new structural separation model
proposed by Brenden Kuerbis, Matt Shears, and Avri Doria<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Milton L Mueller<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Syracuse University School of Information
Studies<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/" target="_blank">http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/</a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Internet Governance Project<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://internetgovernance.org/" target="_blank">http://internetgovernance.org</a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI</div><div>Responsable du Projet CERGI Education<br></div><div>Directeur-Adjoint de KT Technologies Informatiques sarl</div><div>SG de ESTETIC - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC (<a href="http://www.estetic.tg" target="_blank">http://www.estetic.tg</a>)<br></div><div>ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (<a href="http://www.icann.org/" target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/</a> et <a href="http://www.npoc.org/" target="_blank">http://www.npoc.org/</a>)<br>Membre du FOSSFA (<a href="http://www.fossfa.net" target="_blank">www.fossfa.net</a>) et Membre de de Internet Society (<a href="http://www.isoc.org" target="_blank">www.isoc.org</a>) </div><div>BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72 <br>Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé – Togo<br><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>