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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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* <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:31 PM
> Subject: Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?
> To: BestBits <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>, Accountability Cross Community
> <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> [e-mail] <mailto:[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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan