[lir-wg] ICANN Reform

Hello,

maybe I can come in the debate with some practical experiences from the
ccTLD side as we are suffering some problems since some time.

On 08.10.2002 21:53 Hans Petter Holen <hpholen at tiscali.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> --On 8. oktober 2002 11:06 +0900 Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>
> > to paraphrase from a private conversation:
> >
> > note that the iana function is the only formal link between the
> > ietf and the registries, and we should be careful of what we break.
> > the ietf does not want to start writing rir (and N other fiefdoms)
> > consideration sections in rfcs.
>
> So a design criteria for whatever scenario we are looking at should be to
> maintain this link. (ie co-organisation of the IETF-IANA function and the
> RIR-IANA function.
>
> > there are a number of different roles of the iana function, what
> > different parties need from the iana function, and their/our
> > respective relationships to and through the iana.  the rir position
> > seems to be to break away from the iana.  the ietf position, such
> > as it is, seems more to coordinate the non-dnso iana functions in
> > the iana in a way well detached from icann dnso politics.
>
> I think the root of the concern is the strong link between the percived
de
> facto policy makers (ICANN staff) and the IANA staff.
>
> I belive this concern is only true if it is in fact so that ICANN staff
> makes policy desicions (or suggests them to the board who ratifies them
> without public process)

that is unfortunately done on a regular basis at least in the ccTLD area
and you should be aware that unless there are no contractual safegards they
may try it for the RIRs.

>
> The cause for this concern is that while some of us see something as a
> policy desicion others don't.
>
> The very fundamental question is perhaps:
> - Are there any desicions at all to be taken by ICANN which does not
> require an open transparent process ?

In the domain area ICANN have took a lot of decisions in the past without
using an open and transparent process even when ccTLDs told them not to do
so and - and - that was the biggest surprise to me - nobody - including the
ICANN board - cares.

It starts with the complete ignorance in how ccTLDs want to organize
themselves, unilateral changes in the IANA policies, blocking of necesarry
technical changes, developing a new CC-structure wihin ICANN without taking
into account the work of the ccSO ...

>
> Looking carefully at that question I realise that it can be generalized:
> - Are there any desicions at all to be taken by X which does not require
an
> open transparent process ?
>
> where X = {ICANN, RIPE NCC, ARIN, APNIC, IETF, ASO, ...}
>
> and this it is where it gets interesting:

the question should be if X=ICANN thinks they don't need an open &
transparent process has Y= (RIPE NCC, ARIN, APNIC, IETF, ASO, ...) the
possibility to stop them to implement policies just by doing.


> - the concern is exactly the same at both sides of the ICANN vs RIR
> discussion...
>
> -hph
>
>

Sabine

--
Sabine  Dolderer
DENIC eG
Wiesenhüttenplatz 26
D-60329 Frankfurt

eMail: Sabine.Dolderer at denic.de
Fon: +49 69 27235 0
Fax: +49 69 27235 235