US Government Announcement about transfer IANA functions stewardship

[Amr Elsadr]

That’s a good point, Avri. Currently, with the decentralized system, ICANN is not the administrator. The EWG suggested several models for the new RDS. The one I find to be the lesser of all evils is the “opt-out model”. This allows “thick” registries to opt-out of aggregation of whois info if they agree to provide query services with yet undetermined specifications that would be detailed in a service level agreement.

The NCSG response to the EWG status update report expressed disapproval of the aggregated model, although separation of policy and implementation organisations wasn’t one of the reasons listed as troubling. A good thought for future discussions when a post-EWG will be initiated.

Thanks, Avri.

Amr

On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> BTW, assuming the EWRs centralized registrant database comes into existence,  who do we think should administer it?
> 
> I see the questions as tied in. I believe that ICANN will ultimately want to administer it, or whatever replaces it.  Especially if they become the trusted administrator of all things critical.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 16-Mar-14 12:28, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Surely agree. None of this make WHOIS and other topics less important,
>> and I will, in my own capacity, be following them very closely in
>> Singapore and beyond.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>> 
>>> no worries, there will be discussion about the issue (a lot of
>>> discussion). I am working to update the agenda for NCSG meeting and
>>> topics with the board . we have to adapt to the new context.
>>> 
>>> for whois and other ongoing topics like accountability, we need to
>>> keep following them, the challenge is how we to handle all these in
>>> parallel because we cannot drop them.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 2014-03-16 23:34 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>>> 
>>>    +1 Avri.  Bad things happen in chaos, and there could be a lot of
>>>    it as folks take this announcement for more than it is, and all
>>>    the aforementioned crazy views get ventilated.  I am busy reading
>>>    that law article on accountability that Zittrain referenced in his
>>>    piece (thanks to whoever forwarded it) but I am a long long way
>>>    from having an intelligent view on how this transition should
>>>    occur, and what the what in transition to what means (apologies to
>>>    non-english speakers for that one!).
>>>    Is there time in Singapore to have a serious discussion/tutorial
>>>    on this?  and does focusing on it put anything else at risk with
>>>    respect to decision-making at Netmundial?  For instance, I have
>>>    given up on thinking that anyone else will be focusing on
>>>    decisions on the WHOIS makeover now...and some really un-good
>>>    things could happen.
>>>    cheers Stephanie
>>>    On 2014-03-16, at 8:13 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>    > On 16-Mar-14 06:16, William Drake wrote:
>>>    >>
>>>    >> All the more reason for civil society actors to clear their
>>>    throats and
>>>    >> bring a little sanity….
>>>    >>
>>>    >
>>>    > But views in so-called civil society are all over the map and
>>>    match idea for idea both the crazy and the sane we see elsewhere.
>>>     Certainly lots of civil society actors are talking now, but we
>>>    have widely divergent view points.
>>>    >
>>>    > I think that first we have to agree on some sane ideas.  I doubt
>>>    we can find many we agree on, but if we find just a few basic
>>>    ideas like "No the UN is not going to get IANA", we may be doing
>>>    all we can do as a group.
>>>    >
>>>    > For example there are many proposals for the way forward.  The
>>>    most famous being that offered by Brenden and Milton with lots of
>>>    other contributions including one I made.  These are all very
>>>    different and it will take a bit of work to distill from all of
>>>    them the actual path forward.  While it looks like NCSG already
>>>    endorsed the Brenden and Milton plan, I don't remember us doing
>>>    so, though many here do endorse it. I don't happen to, though I do
>>>    credit it for making me think about this seriously - I probably
>>>    would not have made a contribution if I had not been so disturbed
>>>    by their contribution. So I am grateful to is for showing me a
>>>    path we should not follow.
>>>    >
>>>    > So yeah Civil Society needs to open its mouth, but what are we
>>>    going to say?
>>>    >
>>>    > avri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140317/ef21b6bb/attachment.htm>