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

[León Felipe Sánchez Ambía]

Thanks Andrew, James and Milton,

I suggest moving this discussion to the appropriate list.

Best regards,


León

> El 16/11/2015, a las 10:59 a.m., Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> escribió:
> 
> This issue (separate or integrated IANA functions operators) is really an issue that CCWG has nothing to say about. It was already decided by the three operational communities that each IFO would be separable, and protocols and numbers already have clear ways of separating from ICANN, whereas names has a very difficult and complicated process for doing so.
> 
> CCWG touches on this issue ONLY insofar as the instructions of the separation process must be enforceable somehow (for ONLY the names community).
> 
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Padmini
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 7:01 AM
> To: BestBits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Accountability Cross Community; NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?
> 
> 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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151116/90bc32c1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151116/90bc32c1/signature-0001.asc>