[kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-my comments

[McTim]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Wambua,
>
> I wont make it for the meeting but plse register my comment on the above as
> follows:
>
> 1. No single government should have oversight powers over IANA
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority>functions(core
> operational functions of the Internet).
>

That's what the original White Paper said...it's just 20 years later now.


NB: IANA functions are administrative, not operational.





> 2. It is therefore best that the US government relinquishes oversight
> powers over the IANA function in a progressive manner i.e. by moving its
> relationship with ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> over IANA function from
> the current "Contractual" agreement to a "Cooperation" agreement locally
> known as an  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_agreement>MOA<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_agreement>and eventually an non-legal agreement sometimes known as an
> MoU <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding>


that's what ICANN says too:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/ACF2EF.pdf



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20110326/1eef254d/attachment.htm>