[governance] Re: New IANA contract and other agreements

[Roland Perry]

In message <3CF315E4-668B-4A11-999E-323833481DE5 at istaff.org>, at
09:42:31 on Tue, 15 Nov 2011, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> writes

>> Or is this ICANN acting solely as the operator of the IANA function
>>at the time of signing all those agreements? If so, perhaps we need
>>a mechanism to transfer them to a new IANA operator (should one be chosen).
>
>That would be between ICANN and the other parties in the agreements.

To restore the context, I was asking a rhetorical question as a response
to Daniel's assertion that:

        "Once this string is in the ISO3166 list, IANA can assign the
        corresponding ccTLD to a registry. ICANN does not participate in
        this process."

However, I tend to agree with your view that ICANN *does* participate in
the choice of [cctld] registry, as evidenced by all those agreements. If
that is the case, as long as new-IANA can show there's a public interest
served by ICANN's choices, it should be business as usual.

>For example, the NRO serves as ICANN's Address Support Organization (ASO)
>I would not expect that to change in the least as a result of any IANA
>Function contract outcome.

Indeed. The ASO is one of *ICANN's* policy silos. All that would change
is the outcome (formalised by the ICANN Board) would be implemented by
the separate new-IANA.

> Another example is the administration of
>the in-addr.arpa zone, where ICANN now generates the contents of that
>zone per request of the IAB & the NRO.  This was done directly between
>the parties (as opposed to an expansion of the IANA Functions contract)
>and would like only move with the consideration of all of the parties.
>
>While a new IANA Function operator would need to have close working
>relations with the others in the IAB/ISOC/ICANN/NRO/root operators
>space, it is not readily apparent that it would need formal agreements
>with any of them.

It's probably sufficient for IANA to promise to do what the NTIA
specifies, and for one of those specifications (for the near future
anyway) being expressed as: "implement policy arising from ICANN"
(and/or other well known relevant decision making bodies).

Of course, one of the possible interpretations of the "public interest"
test imposed on IANA is simply to say "it came from ICANN" (or other
well known decision-making bodies). Although it does seem the NTIA might
be looking for something a bit deeper than that.
-- 
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