[bestbits] [CCWG-ACCT] Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello,

While it's fine to move this to appropriate list. It may be helpful to
indicate that 3 lists are involved in this so it may be good to discuss the
issue with the individual OCs.

That said, I am certain the ship has sailed on this particular question in
that  ICG has completed its process (well almost) in producing a single
proposal where each OCs have proposed a clear separation process
post-transition and can indeed implement whenever required.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 16 Nov 2015 19:39, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
wrote:

> Thanks Andrew, James and Milton,
>
> I suggest moving this discussion to the appropriate list.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> León
>
> El 16/11/2015, a las 10:59 a.m., Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> escribió:
>
> This issue (separate or integrated IANA functions operators) is really an
> issue that CCWG has nothing to say about. It was already decided by the
> three operational communities that each IFO would be separable, and
> protocols and numbers already have clear ways of separating from ICANN,
> whereas names has a very difficult and complicated process for doing so.
>
> CCWG touches on this issue ONLY insofar as the instructions of the
> separation process must be enforceable somehow (for ONLY the names
> community).
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Padmini
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2015 7:01 AM
> *To:* BestBits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Accountability Cross
> Community; NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> (Apologies for cross posting at the outset)
>
> At the Centre for Internet and Society, we found ourselves wondering why
> there was a strong presumption in favour of unified IANA functions after
> the transition, given that there was at one point of time significant
> amounts of discourse on splitting these functions. Even as we all debate
> over the extent of ICANN's coordinating functions over the different
> functions, perhaps we could open our - minds to the idea of separating the
> three functions - names, numbers, protocols - after the transition.
> This idea has been detailed in the blog post below. The three main points
> we make are :
>
>    - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for technical specialisation
>    leading to greater efficiency of the IANA functions.
>    - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for more direct
>    accountability, and no concentration of power.
>    - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for ease of shifting of the
>    {names,number,protocol parameters} IANA functions operator without
>    affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function operators.
>
>
>
>
> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tranistion-iana
>
> We welcome comments on this.
>
> Warm Regards
> Padmini
> Centre for Internet and Society
> Bangalore
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20151116/f5a796d6/attachment.htm>