[kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS
Harry Delano
harry at comtelsys.co.ke
Sun Mar 27 20:13:24 EAT 2011
Hello,
Alice Best, I was just about to post my comment, when I noticed yours roll
in. I may not be
responding directly to the 6 points you raised. However, this is just a
general comment on
what may be afoot, especially with the call for review by NTIA coming at a
time when there
are concerted efforts far and wide to reign in ICANN. Maybe we need to
realize how important
it is first to keep these efforts at bay as a priority, even as we embark on
consolidation and
enhancements in its operations.
Much of the huge progress we have witnessed within Cyberspace has been
largely due to
the unbridled freedom enjoyed by a borderless internet community working
together and
knowing no geographical frontiers. They have dictated the fast pace at which
internet has
evolved, in just about under a decade. I must say ICANN to a large extend
has exercised
it's mandate responsibly towards the global internet community in
facilitating this progress.
What we need now moving forward, is the mandate to be broadened to encompass
greater
accountability to it's global base.
The day we will cede back this control to a governmental authorit(y) (ies),
is the day we roll
back the carpet on most of these major achievements, which do not auger at
all well for future
development. Doing that means opening up to vested interests, whether
geopolitical, regional,
sectoral etcetra. We need not allow that.
To date, ICANN has had a free hand in it's operations without undue
influence hugely because
many, especially in Govt, including the U.S congress to a greater extend are
yet to fully comprehend
this tiny group, what it does, and what it's influence on the global stage
is. But maybe, this might
only be shortlived, and no longer the case in the coming days when they wake
up to the reality
and demand control.
We need to understand the oversight in place (mandate) and essentially have
the same
speedily move towards being delinked from any form of Governmental authority
- whether
single, or grouping.
Harry
_____
From: kictanet-bounces+harry=comtelsys.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke
[mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=comtelsys.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke] On
Behalf Of Alice Munyua
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 6:46 PM
To: harry at comtelsys.co.ke
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
Subject: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS
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 <mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com>
<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 <mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com>
<dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
From: McTim <mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com> <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-my comments
To: "Walubengo J" <mailto:jwalu at yahoo.com> <jwalu at yahoo.com>
Cc: "KICTAnet KICTAnet" <mailto:kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
<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> 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/20110327/2049ee7d/attachment.htm>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list