[IANAtransition] ccNSO Council Comment

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Mon May 5 20:55:50 UTC 2014


On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>
>
> Recall that we are discussing here the IANA function, which is a clerical
> function that simply implements agreed policy.
>

Ah! someone has just spoken my language ;)

>
> The registry operators do have a strong interest in ensuring that the root
> zone file correctly reflects decisions, and that interest is the same as
> the
> interest of the DNS users.
>

+1 and actually every stakeholder wants that and perhaps that also include
the DNS users. Remember DNS users are the ones that actually sustain the
whole domain name system and ofcourse the internet as a whole.


> Other matters of interest to users, such as price caps, UDRP, creation of
> new gTLDs, etc., are not part of the IANA function.
>
> Maybe all listed above except new gTLDs which ofcourse has everything to
do with IANA function.

Cheers!

> Best,
> Richard
>
> >
> >     Brian
> >
> > > Not saying others shouldn't be involved and hava an important
> > voice in the transition, but the idea that RZF changes are going
> > to be made more accurate and secure because GAC representatives
> > or consumer organizations are looking over their shoulder strikes
> > me as prima facie implausible.
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 4:56 PM
> > >> To: Milton L Mueller
> > >> Cc: ianatransition at icann.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] ccNSO Council Comment
> > >>
> > >> On 05/05/2014 05:33, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > >> ...
> > >>> "It is imperative that registry operators sit at the table on
> > equal footing with
> > >> those organizations [IAB, ISOC, IETF] and without ICANN
> intermediation.
> > >> Accordingly, we call on ICANN to expand the proposed steering group to
> > >> include two representatives selected by the ccTLD community and two
> > >> representatives selected by the Registry Stakeholder Group as
> "affected
> > >> parties."
> > >>
> > >> Shouldn't the NRO also be in the brackets?
> > >>
> > >> That said, it's hard to disagree, but I remain concerned that
> > the registry
> > >> operators have a vested interest and that the voice of the users of
> DNS
> > >> registrar services should be heard somehow.
> > >>
> > >>    Brian
> > _______________________________________________
> > ianatransition mailing list
> > ianatransition at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> ianatransition mailing list
> ianatransition at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/attachments/20140505/d32ff489/attachment.html>


More information about the ianatransition mailing list