Ominous update on the IANA transition

[Milton L Mueller]

>
> The numbers people also want a separable, contractual relationship. Tell me why names is different.
>

I believe you know the major difference between numbers and names which is the policy source; ICANN is the policy source for names while it is not for numbers.

Not quite correct, Seun.

ICANN is BOTH the policy source for names AND the maintainer of the IANA registry for names. So you are ducking the question: why shouldn’t names have the same structural separation between the policy maker and the IANA implementer? And if it does, why can’t the policy maker choose the IANA operator?

One may argue that it will be in the interest of names(especially the Gs) that ICANN continue to stand.
For numbers and protocol it will make a lot of sense to move it's database from ICANN (when required) because it's policy development process is independent of ICANN. Same cannot be said for names(excluding ccTLD) and maybe that is why some don't see much sense in the proposed contractual arrangements for names.

The same can be said for names and is being said for names. Seun, let me make something clear to you and all other ALAC people who have tried to stop separability (interesting to know why but that is another issue).

If you don’t accept legal separation of PTI and continue to push for an ICANN monopoly on IANA, there will be no consensus on this latest proposal and the transition will probably fail. I can guarantee you that there will never be consensus on a purely internal solution. In this latest proposal the community has come to an agreement on a middle ground in which there is separation but in the form of an ICANN affiliate. If you continue to oppose that you might very well kill the transition, because refusal to accept the latest plan will basically push us back to square one on the internal-external debate. Think carefully about whether that is what you want.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150510/084495a0/attachment.htm>