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

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Padmini,

 

I fully agree with your analysis and proposals, and in fact a very similar proposal was submitted by the Just Net Coalition to the various groups that were discussing the transition, see paragraphs 31 ff. of the submission at:

 

  http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/pdfXXrCnTxCwW.pdf 

 

Further, in my view there is no good reason why ICANN, whose function is to regulate the domain name business, should run the IANA function, which is a clerical function with no policy role.  In fact, some informed observers are of the view that there are very good reasons why ICANN should NOT run the IANA function, see page 4 of the letter at:

 

http://cavebear.com/docs/ntia-icann-2014-others.pdf 

 

But, based on past discussions on this list, I expect that there will be no support for your proposals, and likely there will be harsh criticism of them.

 

Best,

Richard

 

 

 

From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Padmini
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 06:29
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Ianaplan] Fwd: Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?

 

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