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/>
>