Re: [Internetgovtech] an initial proposal wrt IANA developments

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

On 3/20/14 5:01 PM, "Eliot Lear" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>
>> The IETF, IAB, and RIRs are committed to open and transparent
>>processes. They
>> also are committed to the role of ICANN as the IANA protocol parameter
>>and IP
>> address registry operator. The accountability mechanisms for ICANN's
>> administration of these core internet functions will provide escalation
>>routes
>> that assure the names, numbers, and protocol communities that if IANA's
>> performance is lacking, those communities can pursue defined processes
>>for
>> improving performance, including pre-agreed independent 3rd party
>> arbitration processes.
>
>There was general agreement in London that ICANN does a good job for the
>IETF managing protocol parameters.  As someone who has worked very
>closely with that team, I must agree.  They deserve all the applause we
>gave them, and more.  They do this work on our behalf.  As a general
>rule, however, I prefer bilateral voluntary agreements rather than
>arbitration processes.  That is, the IETF should always control its own
>destiny, and arbitration dilutes that autonomy.  The above paragraph
>also should be aligned to our principles.


Completely agree.

I would also like to echo the comments made about this starting point text
being arbitrarily centered on ICANN's role. We know that it is possible to
describe the roles involved with IANA generically -- the IAB is doing just
that in draft-iab-iana-framework [1]. Perhaps focusing more on which of
those roles need actual improvements/strengthening in light of the NTIA
announcement and how they should be improved would be more productive.

Alissa

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-iana-framework-02