[CCWG-ACCT] Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?

[Nigel Roberts]

In my view, the reason this has been resisted, is that the ICANN 
Establishment would see this as a threat to the larger 'empire' it has 
created.

The facts, from the ccTLD perspective, is that most of the ICANN 
infrastructure is entirely unnecessary.

What is needed is a working, reliable and automated IANA function, and a 
small staff support that follows policy (RFCs 920 and 1591, as construed 
by the ccNSO in a 6 year project).

It would be very simple, and indeed, would improve stability and 
reliability to have two IANA functions - one for ccTLDs and one for the 
rest, IF the contractor (Verisign) accepted instructions from each for 
their respective areas of responsbility.

If ICANN fails to reassure ccTLDs that the 2003 settlement is not being 
dismantled, this may become more of a proposal.



Nigel

On 16/11/15 12:01, Padmini wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> (Apologies for cross posting at the outset)
>
> At the Centre for Internet and Society, we found ourselves wondering why
> there was a strong presumption in favour of unified IANA functions after
> the transition, given that there was at one point of time significant
> amounts of discourse on splitting these functions. Even as we all debate
> over the extent of ICANN's coordinating functions over the different
> functions, perhaps we could open our - minds to the idea of separating
> the three functions - names, numbers, protocols - after the transition.
>
> This idea has been detailed in the blog post below. The three main
> points we make are :
>
>   * Splitting of the IANA functions allows for technical specialisation
>     leading to greater efficiency of the IANA functions.
>   * Splitting of the IANA functions allows for more direct
>     accountability, and no concentration of power.
>   * Splitting of the IANA functions allows for ease of shifting of the
>     {names,number,protocol parameters} IANA functions operator without
>     affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function
>     operators.
>
>
> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tranistion-iana
>
>
> We welcome comments on this.
>
> Warm Regards
>
> Padmini
> Centre for Internet and Society
> Bangalore
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>