Hello,

While it's fine to move this to appropriate list. It may be helpful to indicate that 3 lists are involved in this so it may be good to discuss the issue with the individual OCs.

That said, I am certain the ship has sailed on this particular question in that  ICG has completed its process (well almost) in producing a single proposal where each OCs have proposed a clear separation process post-transition and can indeed implement whenever required.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 16 Nov 2015 19:39, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks Andrew, James and Milton,

I suggest moving this discussion to the appropriate list.

Best regards,


León

El 16/11/2015, a las 10:59 a.m., Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> escribió:

This issue (separate or integrated IANA functions operators) is really an issue that CCWG has nothing to say about. It was already decided by the three operational communities that each IFO would be separable, and protocols and numbers already have clear ways of separating from ICANN, whereas names has a very difficult and complicated process for doing so.
 
CCWG touches on this issue ONLY insofar as the instructions of the separation process must be enforceable somehow (for ONLY the names community).
 
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Padmini
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 7:01 AM
To: BestBits; [log in to unmask]; Accountability Cross Community; [log in to unmask]
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?
 

Dear all,

(Apologies for cross posting at the outset)

At the Centre for Internet and Society, we found ourselves wondering why there was a strong presumption in favour of unified IANA functions after the transition, given that there was at one point of time significant amounts of discourse on splitting these functions. Even as we all debate over the extent of ICANN's coordinating functions over the different functions, perhaps we could open our - minds to the idea of separating the three functions - names, numbers, protocols - after the transition.

This idea has been detailed in the blog post below. The three main points we make are :
  • Splitting of the IANA functions allows for technical specialisation leading to greater efficiency of the IANA functions.
  • Splitting of the IANA functions allows for more direct accountability, and no concentration of power.
  • Splitting of the IANA functions allows for ease of shifting of the {names,number,protocol parameters} IANA functions operator without affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function operators.
 

http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tranistion-iana

We welcome comments on this. 

Warm Regards

Padmini
Centre for Internet and Society
Bangalore
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
[log in to unmask]
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
[log in to unmask]
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community