[kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS

[Alice Munyua]

Thank you Walu and McTim

This will be a good opportunity for Kenyan stakeholders, (we are very 
active in both ICANN and IGF spaces) to input and wish to encourage more 
comments online as well as during the meeting on Tuesday.

Comments are requested along these 6 areas/aspects:

·In light of technology changes and market developments, should the IANA 
functions continue to be treated as interdependent technical functions? 
For example, does the coordination of the assignment of technical 
protocol parameters need to be done by the same entity that administers 
certain responsibilities as sociated with root zone management? Please 
provide specific information to support why or why not, taking into 
account security and stability issues.

·The performance of the IANA functions often relies upon the policies 
and procedures developed by a variety of entities within the Internet 
technical community such as the IETF, the RIRs and ccTLD operators. 
Should the IANA functions contract include references to these entities, 
the policies they develop and instructions that the contractorfollow the 
policies? Please provide specific information as to why or why not. If 
yes, please provide language you believe accurately captures these 
relationships.

·previously raised by some governments and ccTLD operators and the need 
to ensure the stability of and security of the DNS, are there changes 
that could be made to how root zone management requests for ccTLDs are 
processed? Please provide specific information as to why or why not. If 
yes, please provide specific suggestions.

·-Broad performance metrics and reporting are currently required under 
the contract.\7\ Are the current metrics and reporting requirements 
sufficient? Please provide specific information as to why or why not. If 
not, what specific changes should be made?

·Can process improvements or performance enhancements be made to the 
IANA functions contract to better reflect the needs of users of the IANA 
functions to improve the overall customer experience? Should mechanisms 
be employed to provide formalized user input and/or feedback, outreach 
and coordination with the users of the IANA functions? Is additional 
information related to the performance and administration of the IANA 
functions needed in the interest of more transparency? Please provide 
specific information as to why or why not.

·Should additional security considerations and/or enhancements be 
factored into requirements for the performance of the IANA functions? 
Please provide specific information as to why or why not. If additional 
security considerations should be included, please provide specific 
suggestions.


best Alice,

> --- On *Sat, 3/26/11, McTim /<dogwallah at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/ACF2EF.pdf
>
> @McTim,
>
> True, ICANN says more else the same thing; but think about it, maybe 
> ICANN says what we  ask it to say and they reflect our thoughts and 
> aspirations.  That is the nature of a multistakeholder, bottom up 
> organisation that ICANN is.
>
> walu.
> nb: also refer to my original message and you will see that I never 
> claimed exclusive rights to these comments. I simply digested the same 
> for the local community.
>
> --- On *Sat, 3/26/11, McTim /<dogwallah at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
>
>     From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
>     Subject: Re: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-my
>     comments
>     To: "Walubengo J" <jwalu at yahoo.com>
>     Cc: "KICTAnet KICTAnet" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
>     Date: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 5:04 PM
>
>
>
>     On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com
>     </mc/compose?to=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 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> This message was sent to: alice at apc.org
> Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20110327/422148ae/attachment.htm>