Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] SSAC Report on the IANA Functions contract

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

JFC Morfin wrote:
> At 10:34 14/10/2014, Richard Hill wrote:
>> The SSAC has prepared a Report on the IANA Functions Contract 
>> (SAC068).  It is at:
>>
>>   https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-068-en.pdf
>
> Dear Richard,
>
> This document concerns the pre-post-NTIA-removal. I belong to those 
> who do not believe ICANN can have the NTIA's US sovereignty 
> transferred to it. In that category, there seems to be 191 non-US 
> States that do not share the NTIA plan, and actually have, in their 
> wide majority, voted against it or politely abstained in Dubai.

There is another way of looking at this.

Voluntary standards bodies have long been recognized and deferred to by 
governments and inter-governmental bodies in lots of areas. Essentially, 
IETF et. al. are voluntary standards bodies, with ICANN and various 
registries operating at the behest of these voluntary standards bodies.  
At this point, the NTIA-ICANN contract is little more than written 
recognition of the role of these various standards bodies, and of ICANN 
as a contractor supporting them - and possibly adding a smidge of 
accountability and oversight within US Government jurisdiction.

Many maintain that the NTIA role is superflous and the status quo will 
remain in the absence of the NTIA contract.  Others, myself included, 
argue that some level of accountability and oversight will be required - 
particularly in that ICANN is a contractor, not a voluntary standards 
body - thus some "backstop" would be useful to reinforce the ability of 
IETF, et. al., to hold ICANN accountable, and, if necessary, to change 
contractors for the various registry functions.

Either way, though, the notion that voluntary standards bodies are the 
authoritative parties vis-a-vis the Internet should carry over into a 
post-NTIA world.

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra