<div dir="ltr">Hi Seun,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 17 December 2014 at 18:21, Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Jordan,<br><br></div>My response inset<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Jordan Carter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi all, Seun:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On 18 December 2014 at 05:07, Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span>On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Jordan Carter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Giving both the right to operate the IANA functions, and the responsibility for operating the Root Zone, to the same entity would be far worse in respect of accountability and creating a new massively centralised power structure in Internet Governance than even the current idea of simply transferring IANA to ICANN in perpetuity.</div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>The implementation of the names related IANA functions is largely the operation of the Root Zone, so i am not sure i understand why/how you have counted this as double rights?<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Because today, there are two agreements and three parties:</div><div><br></div><div>NTIA which essentially "owns" the DNS, and offers two contracts/agreements:</div><div>- to ICANN to be the IANA functions administrator</div><div>- to Verisign to be the Root Zone Maintainer </div><div><br></div><div>If I read your suggestion right, you seem to think folding all that into one organisation would be OK.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Please note that VeriSign role is simply executing rootzone instructions from ICANN (which currently gets channelled through NTIA to VeriSign), so VeriSign by process has no control to independently make any change without authorisation. <br></div><div>If we both have that understanding then i hope we can then agree that there is no double rights in that.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am afraid you're not getting the point. That contractual and organisational separation is very important. It is the *fact* of that separation between entities and managing relationships by contract that allows us all to feel comfortable.</div><div><br></div><div>I genuinely can't understand why you think that adding it into one organisation and removing all that is OK - or even more concerningly, that you don't seem to understand how big a change that would be.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><span class=""><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I can't imagine how that would be OK. It would be a giant concentration of power in one place and would create an all-powerful central institution for names management (absent massive cultural and structural changes at ICANN). </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>From my explanation (how i understand it) above, i hope you agree that its not in anyway a new thing and like i said, if Verisign is willing to continue maintaining (which i expect has cost implication) then one would envision an agreement between ICANN and Verisign that ensures the authorisation source remains single as it currently is.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, we don't agree - as above. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Even if ICANN transitions to a more accountable organisation in terms of what it does, that doesn't balance out the very far-reaching change you seem to have suggested of putting all the pieces in one basket.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>The way i understand it, there has always been a basket, just that the basket gets sighted by another party i.e NTIA (without NTIA changing its content) before it arrives Verisign who then load the content of the basket in the store.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What if one person controls the whole process, as you are proposing? That's the nub of my concern. </div><div><br></div><div>Jordan</div><div> </div></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.</i><br><br></div></div>
</div></div>