[CWG-Stewardship] Financing the new IANA

[Donna Austin]

Milton

It is fair to say that gTLD registries and ICANN accredited registries " Currently, registries and registrars are paying for IANA services via ICANN fees, and they collect their revenues via end user registrations.", but this isn't necessarily true for ccTLDs with the exception of a few ccTLDs that signed Agreements with ICANN.

In 2006, ICANN commenced a process of formalizing their relationship with ccTLD managers through an Accountability Framework (AF), which could take the form of an exchange of letters or a more formal document (both of which are voluntary and not binding).

These documents are instructive in that they identify the services ICANN provides to the ccTLD and commitments from the ccTLD in return. Many of the ccTLDs commit to pay a voluntary contribution to ICANN as the organization that reliably performs the IANA function; others commit to pay a voluntary contribution to ICANN's cost of operations.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctlds-2012-02-25-en

I know things have moved on since 2006, when this program was started and the ccNSO has come to an understanding with ICANN with regard to fees (and I look to Bart Boswinkel or others to provide an update), but the language in many of the AF documents remains that the contribution is made on the basis that ICANN reliably performs the IANA function.

Thanks,

Donna

[Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager

ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Melbourne | Los Angeles
P  +1 310 890 9655
P  +61 3 9866 3710
E  donna.austin at ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin at ariservices.com>
W  www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/>

Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices>

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Sunday, 26 October 2014 9:10 AM
To: Christopher Wilkinson
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Financing the new IANA



From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson


1.             IANA must remain a single, integral service.

MM: What do you mean "remain"? The names, numbers and protocol parts are almost completely unrelated and are performed by different people.

Oversight and accountability (O&A) can be done once. There is no scope for achieving O&A on the basis of several distinct entities and procedures.

MM: Oversight and accountability should be tied to the entities who use IANA, and those are in fact different entities and involve different procedures. O&A might actually work better if it is divided. And what if one part of the functions is performed well and other other poorly? Unification makes accountability more difficult.

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 present.

MM: TANSTAAFL. That's the acronym for "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Currently, registries and registrars are paying for IANA services via ICANN fees, and they collect their revenues via end user registrations. The issue is not whether the functions are "cost-free" but to whom the costs are allocated and how. Whether current arrangements are optimal or not is a matter for discussion and debate. If Mr. Wilkinson thinks the current arrangement is optimal he must make a logical and fact-based case for it, it is not useful to issue dogmatic pronouncements that tell us what "must" happen.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141027/0a7c2e55/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141027/0a7c2e55/image001-0001.png>