Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] [IANAxfer] A thought re accountability...
Jordan,
Regarding this:
> I raise this now because both for numbers and protocols there's a clear direction to try and rule out any institutional changes.
I’m not sure where this is demonstrated, so I'm interested to see your references. In my own short essay in July, I stated the following:
> 1. Technical stability and continuity
>
> ICANN's responsibilities include technical coordination and service functions that are of great importance to the stable operation of the Internet globally. The RIR communities rely on the continuity and security of these functions, and we have been satisfied with their conduct by ICANN to date.
>
> Given the demonstrated stability and reliability of current arrangements, I suggest there should be no change in the location of IANA or the operation of its functions, as a component of the current IANA transition process. That said, change must of course be possible in future, according to defined processes, and should be in no way limited by new arrangements introduced in the transition process.
For the record, this does not and is not intended to say that there should be absolutely no institutional changes; it just suggests some limits on the extent and nature of changes which I personally believe are justifiable on a risk/benefit basis.
The article is available here FYI:
http://blog.apnic.net/2014/07/13/the-iana-stewardship-transition-in-practical-pieces/
I think I can agree with the rest of your post, but I’m very eager to hear specifically of what institutional changes might be proposed to satisfy the number communities’ needs.
Thanks,
Paul.
________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
On 16 Oct 2014, at 8:18 am, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> A thought that has been bubbling away here at ICANN LA this week for me:
>
> If we are going to have a successful transition, it's really important for the numbers and protocols folks to understand that:
>
> a) they have superior accountability situations to the names people today
> b) the names people cannot copy number/protocol accountability mechanisms because they aren't organised outside ICANN
> c) it isn't possible for names to organise outside ICANN in the way numbers/protocol people do
> d) there may need to be structural changes or new bodies to provide a workable settlement for names
> e) without a workable settlement for names, there isn't going to be a transition.
>
> I raise this now because both for numbers and protocols there's a clear direction to try and rule out any institutional changes.
>
> I strongly caution against any part of the community being dogmatic about any of these, because it will a) attract some attention that'll risk the whole transition process failing (esp. from governments), and b) means that a negotiated outcome is harder to achieve, also risking failure.
>
> Wonder how others feel about this.
>
> cheers
> Jordan
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> InternetNZ
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan@internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
>
> _______________________________________________
> IANAxfer mailing list
> IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer