On 10/02/2015 3:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Dear members: > > The CWG on IANA transition is going to collecting community feedback > on the IANA transition this week. This exercise is very important > because it will influence the CWG’s development of a proposal. > > I have gone through the 9 questions they prepared and answered them, > you all may be interested in my answers. Most of these answers will > probably be uncontroversial on this list, but there may be some room > for debate so I would like to get your feedback on my proposed answers > > 1.Do you believe that the transition from the NTIA should happen > (Please provide the reasons for your answer)? > > Yes. Unilateral US government control of the IANA functions contract > is not compatible with the multistakeholder model > agree > 2.Are you comfortable with ICANN as policy-maker also being the IANA > operator without the benefit of external oversight? > > No. > A No is the best answer. We should not qualify this no IMO (re:Seun's comment) > 3.Should registries, as the primary customers of the IANA functions, > have more of a say as to which transition proposal is acceptable? > > The NTIA has made it clear that all major stakeholder groups, > including registries, need to accept the transition proposal. > Registries should have an influential role in any oversight mechanisms > of the naming-related IANA functions, but need not have a privileged > role in the selection of proposals. > good answer > > 4.What does functional separation of IANA from ICANN mean to you? > (this is not referring to having another operator than ICANN > performing the IANA functions but rather the internal separation > between ICANN and IANA in the context where ICANN is the IANA operator) > > Functional separation means that IANA is a department of ICANN under > the same management as the rest of ICANN and without a clearly > separated budget or mission. > Functional separation in telecom usually means that certain layers on certain facilities will be shared, whereas structural separation entails separately owned facilities. Functional separation needs a regulating body superseding it, otherwise it's just rhetorical separation. Please verify that the academic answer above "functional sep is this and that" doesn't kind of condone a rhetorical separation. > 5.Do you believe the IANA function is adequately separated from ICANN > under the current arrangements (internal separation)? > > No. > agree > 6.In considering the key factors (such as security and stability, ease > of separating the IANA function from ICANN, quality of services, > accountability mechanisms etc.) for evaluating the various transition > proposals what importance would you give to the ability to separate > IANA from ICANN (separability) vs. the other factors? > > Very high importance, because separability will have major beneficial > effects on all the other factors, such as accountability, quality of > service, security and stability. Separability increases the leverage > of the customers of IANA over performance, security and stability. > good answer > 7. Given the IANA functions could be separated from ICANN > do you believe it would be important for the community to obtain from > ICANN on an annual basis the costs for operating IANA including > overhead costs? > > Yes, very important. > > o Would it be important to separate out the costs associated with > address and protocol functions? > > Less so than the IANA department as a whole > Both are important. They cannot be a substitute for effective separation. > 8. Could there be unforeseen impacts relative to selecting > a new operator for the IANA functions vs the ICANN policy role (should > ICANN determine that there will be another round of new gTLDs, how > could it ensure that the new operator would accept this)? > > No, a new operator could be contractually bound to accept changes from > ICANN that were the product of legitimate policy making processes. > good answer > > 9. Are there other transition models which the CWG should > be exploring? > > Yes, the new structural separation model proposed by Brenden Kuerbis, > Matt Shears, and Avri Doria > I'd be interested in seeing this proposal. I guess I may have been to busy to parse this list correctly of late. Nicolas > Milton L Mueller > > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> >