[governance] Digital Agenda: Commission welcomes improvements in new IANA contract

[Roland Perry]

In message <50F87DCB-2DA7-45B8-AC72-E2B3DB7D7F54 at istaff.org>, at 
17:45:23 on Mon, 14 Nov 2011, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> writes
>On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying quite hard to imagine a situation where the IANA contract/ 
>>function is awarded to someone other than ICANN, not because I think 
>>it might be, or should be, but the contract terms must make some sort 
>>of sense in the eventuality that it is (otherwise the tendering is a 
>>sham).
>
>Interesting thought exercise.  Since the IANA Function Contract is 
>predominantly a recording entity that operates accordingly to the 
>policies set by various bodies, the theory may be that nothing would 
>significantly change. When ICANN goes to implement nearly any change to 
>a registry (e.g. root zone change, or delegation of space from the IPv6 
>free pool, or making an entry in one of the protocol registries), they 
>would need to write up the change to send to the IANA operator.

Another aspect of "no change", and one which would chime well with 
European views on employment law and the transfer of undertakings from 
one body to another, would be for the new IANA operator to start off by 
employing all the existing IANA staff, with any more drastic changes 
being phased in later.

>That's a very simplistic view of the situation, however, and it would 
>indeed be a rather confusing time on day one should the IANA Function 
>Contract be awarded to a new entity.  As I noted on this list a few 
>weeks back (attached), it would take significantly effort to establish 
>the necessary "close constructive working relationships" called for in 
>the statement of work, but it's not inconceivable.

Especially if you still had all the staff who in practice own those 
relationships.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't agree with your earlier 
statement that:

>>What is clear is that the  final result of any process which required 
>>a change to the root zone  file or central address registry would 
>>ultimately go to a Contractor  team other than the current IANA team 
>>at ICANN.

And that in terms of existing operations and more specifically 
relationships, there could be a controlled medium term handover.

>>The establishment  of comparable relationships with the affected 
>>parties is uncertain  and risky at best (see IANA NOI comments filed 
>>by IAB, NRO & ISOC),  but that does not mean it couldn't happen with 
>>careful preparation  and planning.

Otherwise, I agree that you are looking for one of a very small number 
of (inherently US-based) organisations which already have enough of 
these relationships in place to establish with DoC that they could 
fulfil this requirement on a flag-day next Spring.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t