My answers to the CWG-IANA questions

[Olévié Kouami]

Hi !
Great job Milton !
+1
Cheers !
-Olevie-


2015-02-15 20:01 GMT+00:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:

> Hello Norbert,
>
> Yes, I agree with you and Milton.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:27 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:
>
>  Hi Milton and all on the NCSG-DISCUSS list,
>
> 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.
>
>
> Norbert Klein
> Cambodia
>
>
>
> On 02/10/2015 03:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Dear members:
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 1.      Do you believe that the transition from the NTIA should happen
> (Please provide the reasons for your answer)?
>
> Yes. Unilateral US government control of the IANA functions contract is
> not compatible with the multistakeholder model
>
>
>
> 2.      Are you comfortable with ICANN as policy-maker also being the
> IANA operator without the benefit of external oversight?
>
> No.
>
>
>
> 3.      Should registries, as the primary customers of the IANA
> functions, have more of a say as to which transition proposal is
> acceptable?
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 4.      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)
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 5.      Do you believe the IANA function is adequately separated from
> ICANN under the current arrangements (internal separation)?
>
> No.
>
>
>
> 6.      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?
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> Yes, very important.
>
> o Would it be important to separate out the costs associated with address
> and protocol functions?
>
>
>
> Less so than the IANA department as a whole
>
>
>
> 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)?
>
>
>
> No, a new operator could be contractually bound to accept changes from
> ICANN that were the product of legitimate policy making processes.
>
>
>
> 9.            Are there other transition models which the CWG should be
> exploring?
>
>
>
> Yes, the new structural separation model proposed by Brenden Kuerbis, Matt
> Shears, and Avri Doria
>
>
>
>
>
> Milton L Mueller
>
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
>
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI
Responsable du Projet CERGI Education
Directeur-Adjoint de KT Technologies Informatiques sarl
SG de ESTETIC  - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC (
http://www.estetic.tg)
ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et
http://www.npoc.org/)
Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) et Membre de de Internet Society (
www.isoc.org)
BP : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72
Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150223/cbd543a3/attachment.htm>