Ominous update on the IANA transition

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
> >
> > 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:
>
No i am not, you asked for differences NOT similarities and just for the
record, ICANN is NOT currently IANA maintainer for names, VeriSign is.
ICANN is however the IANA manager for both names and numbers (including
being maintainer for numbers)


> 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?
>
I am not sure any part of my statement implied what you have stated above.


>  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.
>

With due respect Milton, I am quite amazed at your statement above as i
have not said ALAC is stopping anything. Please remember that i am also a
member of the CWG and have been following the process quite keenly (to the
best of my ability). The proposal we currently have was presented to the
community on behalf of the entire CWG and its only the community's view
that would ultimately determine next steps for the CWG proposal. Neither of
us can stop anything if there is consensus from majority of the community
towards a certain solution.

Again for clarity i am only responding on this mailing list as an
individual member of the NCSG and noting more!

Regards

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150511/24fe696d/attachment.htm>