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

[Mueller, Milton L]

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] 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151116/223ef349/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