Thank you Dean for sharing this contribution from Internet NZ. It is helpful in placing different proposals in relations to each other and what would be the changes from now.
Speaking within my personal capacity - I am not convinced about the need to create a seperate organization to perform the IANA function, as some of the proposals are suggesting. I would like see minimum changes to what is already working. I am hearing Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) of ICANN has a plan to produce a report. I am looking forward to seeing this before making too much judgements at this stage. Izumi (2014/03/26 12:41), Dean Pemberton wrote: > What do other people think? > Should the policy development (even for global policies) for these > functions be handled by different groups outside of ICANN oversight and > control completely? > > On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dean, >> >> IMO, >> >> - ccTLD >> - gTLD >> - IP address and AS numbers including reverse DNS zone >> >> these three are separated topics and should be governed by different >> organizations in multi stakeholder model. >> This separation is much more important than separation between policies >> and contracts, >> so I prefer most last option rather than second last option. >> >> Rgs, >> Masato Yamanishi >> >> >> >> On 14/03/25 15:50, "Dean Pemberton" <[email protected] <javascript:;>> >> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> And here is my comment. >>>> >>>> 1. Regarding current overlay in page 3, don't we need to mention about >>>> ASO >>>> AC/NRO NC >>>> which is responsible to global policy for IP/AS as part of ICANN? >>>> (Current figure seems ICANN is handling it by themselves directly, >>>> but >>>> it is not true) >>>> >>> >>> Good point. >>> >>>> 2. While I prefer last option in page 9, do we need "NEW ENTITY 1" >>>> responsible for gTLD policy? >>>> I agree that it is ideally better to separate gTLD policy and gTLD >>>> contracts, >>>> but I don't think it is doable in this timeframe. >>>> >>> >>> It seems more doable in the timeframe than the previous option of >>> having the NE1 take on a similar policy role for IP/ASNs and ccTLDs as >>> well. >>> Whats your opinion on those two options? Which would be a better >>> model if there was sufficient time to implement either? >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dean >>> _______________________________________________ >>> apnic-talk mailing list >>> [email protected] <javascript:;> >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > apnic-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk > _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
