IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still…))

[John Curran]

On Aug 3, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran
> 
> After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these 
> functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet 
> resources, 
> [Milton L Mueller] Well, at best, you can say that the USG runs a public comment period, but the contract is drafted by the USG and for the USG. Sort of like the way the ITU is going to listen to online public comment as it does the ITRs, right?

Milton -
 
   I don't see the USG making policy for DNS names or IP address management,
   and yet setting such policy was definitely done in long past by folks operating 
   under USG contracts.  Policy development is now undertaken by multi-stakeholder 
   participants in the community.  Are you aware of critical Internet resource policy
   being set by USG via its unique IANA contract relationship?

>  including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs
> [Milton L Mueller] Aside from ARIN’s creation, this had nothing to do with the Commerce Department, but was done when the NSF was in control. It’s not likely this authority would be delegated to Europe or Asia had the Commerce Dept been in control.  

   With respect to your question about DoC, it's hard to predict outcomes of 
   hypothetical scenarios (e.g.  whether DoC would have delegated outside US)

   I'll note that within USG there has always been some level of coordination of 
   Internet issues (e.g. Federal Network Council, Interagency TF, etc); I do not
   believe that attributing the evolution in critical Internet resource management
   over 20 years to any one US department would accurately reflect what happened.

>  , the formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. 
> [Milton L Mueller] the formation of ICANN was supposed to lead to full privatization after “two years at most” to quote Magaziner, perhaps you can explain to us why that didn’t happen.  

   Not my job to address such; I was simply pointing out that it is not quite appropriate 
   to suggest that the USG has come from "a posture of total unwillingness", and if it
   were indeed true, these functions would be still performed under policy set by the 
   USG.

> Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed the Internet community itself?
> [Milton L Mueller] Because the USG controls ICANN and the IANA contract.

   All the more reason for the community to come to consensus on how this should 
   evolve, and propose such to the USG.   There is no any particular reason for the 
   USG to change the status quo (and frankly, I'm not certain why the global Internet
   community should or would accept a USG-proposed roadmap in any case...)

FYI,
/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone.  Reality wins.

   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120803/5a42db76/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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