My answers to the CWG-IANA questions
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA
Mon Feb 23 23:31:31 EET 2015
+1 looks good to me too, although I could quibble about the answer to
#4....that is not what it should mean, but you are in a much better
position to determine what it means in the context of these discussions.
Thanks for all the work you folks!
Stephanie Perrin
On 2015-02-23 21:34, Olévié Kouami wrote:
> Hi !
> Great job Milton !
> +1
> Cheers !
> -Olevie-
>
>
> 2015-02-15 20:01 GMT+00:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto: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 <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 <http://www.fossfa.net>) et Membre de
> de Internet Society (www.isoc.org <http://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/20150223/762e0153/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list