<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 29 July 2014 03:48 AM, David
Conrad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:C9424BE9-EAF2-47F8-806A-9390DE75FD67@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Parminder,
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 28, 2014, at 4:28 AM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Verdana">It
misleadingly declares IANA 'function' to be a merely
clerical one. </font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>While I'm sure you will not believe me, having (long ago
and I doubt things have changed) been the general manager of
IANA, this declaration is _not_ misleading. The IANA
functions are, in most cases, editing a text file according
to externally defined policies and publishing the result. I
know that is boring and doesn't play to particular political
agendas, but it is reality.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
David,<br>
<br>
We here need to focus what is the subject of global controversy, and
to deny that there has been any controversy at all, would be, well,
inappropriate, or mis leading. So, you got it backward. You choose
the technical implementation aspects of IANA - which ICANN does -
and declare it as non political controversial. Of course, it is. But
simply is not the point. <br>
<br>
Since there patently has indeed been a historic controversy - and US
is right now reacting to it through offering an IANA transition- I
simply cannot understand why you are denying it, which simply would
mean that those who ever saw it as a controversy are kind of stupid.<br>
<br>
There is an 'Authority' side of Internet Assigned Names Authority -
which vests with the govt of the US, whereby it both contracts the
IANA technical/ implementation function, and oversees it, especially
confirming or not any root zone changes...<br>
<br>
Do you deny this fact?<br>
<br>
If you do not, let me tell you it is this IANA authority exercised
by the US gov which is the subject of controversy and should
therefore be focussed on in the IANA transition discussions. No one
is bothered about the technical/ implementation function undertaken
by ICANN, for the simple reason that, as you rightly observe, it is
politically non controversial. <br>
<br>
It is the holder of IANA authority, and its role, which is the
subject of IANA transition. Not whom the IANA authority will give
the IANA contract, which is a subsequent issue. IANA transition is
about transitioning the authority to award the IANA contract, and to
oversee IANA functions, esp root zone changes. This authority today
is with the US gov.... We need to see where it should go from here.
ICANN taking over this authority is one view, which is very fine as
one view.<br>
<br>
But what astonishes me a lot is, and I consider as misleading, that
the whole focus has been shifted from this 'authority' with the US,
to simple acts of technical implementation of the functions which
ICANN as US contractor does, which is not at all controversial. <br>
<br>
What astonishes me even more is that civil society does not get up
and call the bluff. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:C9424BE9-EAF2-47F8-806A-9390DE75FD67@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>-drc</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>