Seun,

Both layers (MIN, and IP addresses) will likely still be needed. MIN 
identifies the mobile device, as it moves from location to location 
(across town, across the globe) and IP addresses are to whom/what 
(device, app, website, etc.) it is communicating with, and  what feature 
(app, control, etc.) the remote site is talking to on the mobile device. 
Where issues reside, outside ICANN, inside ICANN, will be very much like 
they are now, only much bigger.

Sam

On 27/03/2015 9:19 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> If I get you right, are you basically saying that the MIN is what will 
> enable connectivity in future? I guess that would remove the purpose 
> of RIRs/IETF since connectivity as we know it today is built on IP 
> (Internet protocol) and it's address(numbers).
>
> I think what we should worry about (which has noting to do with ICANN) 
> is unauthorised transfer/access of data. That is happening already; an 
> example is the Samsung smart TV that sends unauthorised voice recordings.
>
> Ultimately, present/future internet users requires improve 
> awareness/education about this great tool called "internet"
>
> Getting ICANN to improve it's contribution to such effort could be a 
> welcome idea
>
> Cheers!
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>