[governance] NTIA says ICANN "does not meet the requirements" for IANA renewal

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 12.03.12 04:13, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>> About the only way out, with regards to the current situation is if 
>> ICANN Is brave enough to spin off IANA as separate entity.
>
> Daniel -
>   Could you elaborate on the above?  I'm trying to understand what
>   exactly you propose, and how that would solve the situation.
>
I know, some of this may sound very speculative, but unfortunately it is 
not.

Some background:
The 'change' in IANA within ICANN happened few years ago. Before that 
point, IANA was an small, encapsulated entity that more or less just 
shared office space with ICANN. IANA at that time had only office 
equipment necessary to perform it's role.
Then, ICANN decided to invest big in data center facilities. This more 
or less coincides with the design and implementation of the root DNSSEC 
signing. I believe IANA by itself did not have the capacity to do 
anything like that and ICANN came as the big brother to help. There was 
a lot of controversy during that time, whether IANA/ICANN should perform 
this function on their own or they should follow different model. My 
suggestion at the time was to separate IANA as much as possible from 
ICANN, as this would be the only chance to have IANA perform the root 
zone signing for DNSSEC and that everyone would agree to it.

One can argue, that before that tripping point, ICANN was the forum for 
various stakeholders to meet together and achieve consensus. This was 
about the only role which I could personally see ICANN do and be 
equitable, but.. apparently someone there had different agenda. With 
this infrastructure investment, ICANN prepared itself to become yet 
another DNS Registry -- the registry of the root. This, also coincided 
with the plans/introduction of the IDN Fast Track and now the new gTLD 
expansion.

Yet another issue ICANN has is with ccTLDs. It has been an situation for 
so many years, where ICANN claimed that ccTLDs did not contribute, in 
contrast with gTLDs (who in fact have contractual relationship with 
ICANN). On the other hand, ccTLDs have always had the position, that 
they are happy to contribute to whatever costs IANA (but not ICANN) has, 
as it is IANA they are dealing with, with regards to "services".

Now back to your question: The moment ICANN invested in beefing up the 
technical capability of IANA was the perfect time for IANA to be spun 
off as an independent unit, perhaps under close supervision of ICANN. 
Unfortunately, this would mean that ICANN could tie up their own hands, 
with regards to their plans for being able to create new top level 
domains at will.

To do this separation today, ICANN has to be extremely brave, as to 
ignore all the lobbying for the new gTLDs and all the promises in that 
regard made by ICANN (staff). For when the separation becomes reality, 
ICANN will become the policy body and IANA will become the executive 
body -- with regards to the root DNS (there is a lot more that IANA 
does, but ICANN does not see they money there, yet). There will possibly 
be an controlling body as well.

If IANA is separate entity, all ccTLDs will be more than happy to 
support that entity, as it will be slim and transparent enough. This is 
one problem, that is solved. A very long standing problem for ICANN.
This separation is exactly what NTIA has requested in the latest bid and 
what ICANN has refused to demonstrate they can/will do. It is therefore 
the primary reason for the current stopping of the bid. I believe NTIA 
will be more than happy to accept that setup.

By the way, this power separation model already exists in some ccTLDs - 
where there is a separate policy making body and separate technical 
executive body.

There are already established "impartial" internet registries like IANA 
- the various regional IP registries come to mind, like the RIPE NCC. At 
one time, during this discussion it occurred to me, that if ICANN fails 
to meet the NTIA requirements, perhaps one of these will, most likely 
ARIN (as there was a requirement to be US based, if I remember 
correctly). Or probably better, a new structure built around that model. 
(as to not create conflict of interest, because ARIN by itself is a 
"customer" for IANA services)

Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120312/02908db3/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