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

Exactly Eliot. If it's not broken, don't fix it. But we maintain there is a
clause to change operators in future if the community feels the IFO is not
meeting the agreed targets
On Nov 17, 2015 12:53 PM, "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Padmini,
>
> It seems to me that the entire rigamarole that has taken place at the CWG
> and elsewhere has been so that the three functions could be separated in
> the future as you suggest, should the need arise.  And so perhaps your
> question is, “Why not do it now?”  With regard to the protocol parameters,
> the answer from the IETF community has repeatedly been unambiguous: we are
> very satisfied with the current operator.  That is actually a quote from
> our submission to the ICG. I am unaware of any events that would have
> changed this perspective in the intervening year.  Given that we are so
> satisfied, and that the price is right, why would we risk destabilizing the
> service?
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Eliot
>
> On 11/17/15 6:29 AM, Padmini wrote:
>
> 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 <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:31 PM
> Subject: Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?
> To: BestBits <bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>, governance@lists.igcaucus.org,
> Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>,
> NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing listIanaplan@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>