[CWG-Stewardship] Financing the new IANA

[Carlton Samuels]

A couple of three things.

The principle of how the function is funded is established; those who
ultimately use the service funds the service delivery.  But IMHO, this
argument has moved from what of the very small piece of the IANA function -
purely oversight and the role played thusly by the NTIA - to a totally
independent-of-ICANN IANA Functions operator.

My sense of the room is that the question of moment for most is not just a
IANA functions oversight provider but the confguration of an independent
[of ICANN] IANA functions operator.

Current funding process - from collection to receipt thru utilisation - has
ICANN in the middle. Assuring an independent IANA functions provider means
re-engineering that process flow.

-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 6:39 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

>  Apologies crossed wires!
>
>  I don’t think there is any concern over the registries and registrars
> funding a new IANA entity but rather if that funding came via ICANN rather
> than directly to the new entity.
> Not from my perspective in any case, open to other points of view from the
> various communities.
>
>  - James
>
>  On 26 Oct 2014, at 04:05, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>  And my question:  Where does IANA’s money come from now.  My
> understanding is that the NTIA’s only role is oversight - not funding.  If
> that is the case, then industry (registries/registrars) already fund IANA
> functions - so the call for IANA functions to remain cost free is simply an
> extension of the present situation (without NTIA oversight).  Any
> corrections welcome.
>
>  HOlly
>
>  On 26 Oct 2014, at 6:23 am, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>
>  I think that funding an impartial public service via a privately
> interested stakeholder without introducing allegations/impressions of
> influence or control would be close to impossible.
> Thus an alternative funding model for an independent IANA entity, should
> that be the option chosen, must be considered and be discussed.
>
>  -James
>
>  On 25 Oct 2014, at 19:55, Christopher Wilkinson <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
>  2. All the IANA services must remain cost-free to the final user. There
> must be no question of charging for specific services, notably amendments
> of the Root Zone.
>    ICANN already has more than ample resources to ensure that the present
> and future IANA is fully funded on a public service basis, as at presen
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141026/65aece60/attachment.html>