[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

[joseph alhadeff]

Milton:

I see the issue differently.  The general business community is 
concerned fist and foremost with the continued stability, security, 
functionality etc of the Internet.  I think many other communities are 
so inclined as well.  I agree and do not think that ICG should decide 
what is preferable or necessary, but this might be a reasonable question 
to pose the communities.  Each community in their proposal was 
considering its own needs and functions with some consideration of 
interdependency.  It is not clear whether the issue of different 
operators was considered as a possible issue of coordination.  If they  
all concur that this raises no issue of concern or coordination, it  
would then address the issue.  I think the question is can we correctly 
assert that this does not create issues from the material before us.  
 From my reading, I don't see it addressed yet.

Joe

On 8/21/2015 11:33 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>> Is this a question we should pose to the OCs? If there is a need for some cross OC
>> coordination review in the case of the replacement of the Operator?  This would
>> have been beyond the remit of the individual proposal...
> No, I don't think so.
>
> I think Mohammed is basically giving us his opinion on how the proposals should handle possible splitting of the IANA functions.
> That opinion, as far as I can tell, was not shared by all of the operational communities.
> I do not think it is within our charter to say that the IANA functions must remain within a single operator. At one point the names community proferred a proposal (the shared services proposal for a PTI) that made a point of trying to keep them together. My recollection is that the protocls and numbers communities were not at all interested in that and particularly not so keen on the new shared governance arrangements it would entail.
>
> I have not seen any convincing evidence that putting them in different operators would necessarily threaten 'the stability and security of the internet.'
> Nothing in the NTIA's remit to us, or to ICANN, tells us that keeping all the IANA functions in the same operator is a requirement.
>
> Let's recall that the FAQs are _about the proposal we actually have_ and not about what some of us here in the ICG would prefer. The proposal before us gives each OC the right to "choose/change the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions." So Alan's formulation is an accurate answer to the question.
>
> --MM
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Lynn for the draft answer, Alan formulation is good.
>>
>> My concern is the last part of the answer :" including choosing/changing the IANA functions operator for their part of the IANA functions", I am not disputing the OC right to make such decisions based on the results of its evaluation of IFO performance for their related functions,  But I am a bit concerned regarding the possibility of one OC changing/splitting the IANA functions unilaterally in the absence of a proper coordination mechanism, such a change might impact the stability and security of the Internet ( not fulfilling one of NTIA requirements ).
>>
>> As our mandate is to produce a harmonized combined final proposal, shouldn't we consider the unity of IANA function is an objective and propose mechanism/rules that ensure proper implementation of IFO change if it happened.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Mohamed
>>
>> ( sent from a tablet device apologies for any misspellings)
>>
>>> On Aug 20, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I like Alan's reformulation too.
>>> --MM
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> helpful.  Alan, I think your reformulation adds a lot of clarity to
>>>> the original question, and helps to clarify the respective roles of the 3 OCs.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org