[CWG-RFP3] Strawman Proposal 4

[Milton L Mueller]

Avri
I agree with many of your sentiments but I think it's a big mistake to tie the trust concept to locking all the IANA functions into a single operator. For one thing, many of us are not convinced that the functions cannot and should not be separated. I went into this process believing that it was complicated to separate them but the more I've learned about what actually goes on the more separable the three basic functions seem to be. (Not to mention that some of the things the IANA now does, such as operate the .int registry, it probably should not be doing at all).

But even if you don't agree with that, a trust might provide the additional layer that makes it easier, rather than harder, to delegate the protocol, names and numbers functions to different entities while ensuring that they are coordinated under an integrated aegis. And that in fact may turn out to be one of the strongest arguments for your trust approach. So when you say:

- a soltion that does not lead us in the slicing IANA into many little ianas. (It is ironic that the IANA stewardship transition process may result in the yet another form of Internet fragmentation)

...you may be underselling your idea.

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/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141116/cf036ede/attachment.html>