The economic case for vertical separation of IANA

As we have detailed elsewhere, in developing an IANA transition proposal the names community working group (CWG) settled into two camps, the internalists and the externalists.  A brief recap: The “externalists” proposed a model which largely reflected the current arrangement between NTIA and ICANN. It proposed replacing the NTIA with...

The last third: Why the IANA transition for names is hard

It is asserted that ICANN was “purpose-built” to operate the IANA functions. This is only partly true. ICANN's original design, in which the IANA functions were a central aspect, was abandoned very quickly between 1999 and 2002. ICANN‘s first bylaws tried to create three Supporting Organizations, one for domains (DNSO),...

A tale of two processes

When the NTIA made its announcement to end its historic role overseeing the IANA functions, ICANN was eager to fulfill its assigned convener role. It initiated two concurrent processes, one for developing an IANA functions transition proposal (or, as ICANN prefers to frame it, its "stewardship transition") and another on enhancing ICANN accountability....

US Congress weighs in on IANA transition

Washington D.C. is abuzz with activity concerning NTIA's IANA transition announcement. Last week saw a hearing with the House Energy & Commerce Committee and a discussion at the Hudson Institute, this week brings another hearing with the Judiciary Committee as well as a NetCaucus briefing. So far, three bills have been proposed.  The first is H.R....

Structural separation: A key principle of IANA globalization

Last Friday’s Department of Commerce announcement means that the process of globalizing the governance of the DNS root zone has officially begun. Almost immediately, ICANN began spinning the NTIA announcement to re-scope what is actually up for debate. Not surprisingly, the spin goes in a direction calculated to subtly strengthen...