[Ianaplan] Fwd: Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?

[Padmini <[e-mail]>]

Reposting this here as Mr. Sullivan was kind enough to point out that this
would be a more appropriate forum to do so.

We would really appreciate any feedback on our outputs.

Warm Regards

Padmini Baruah
Programme Associate, Internet Governance, Centre for
Internet and Society, Bangalore
V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
NLSIU, Bangalore

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Padmini <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:31 PM
Subject: Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?
To: BestBits <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
Accountability Cross Community <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail]


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