Re: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-my comments
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 functions(core operational functions of the Internet). 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 over IANA function from the current "Contractual" agreement to a "Cooperation" agreement locally known as an MOA and eventually an non-legal agreement sometimes known as an MoU walu. nb: these views are not exclusively mine but reflect the current international thinking by internet industry players. I find them agreeable and maybe the .KE government may wish to interrogate possibly adopt the same. --- On Fri, 3/25/11, David Wambua <david@kenic.or.ke> wrote: From: David Wambua <david@kenic.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-REMINDER To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Friday, March 25, 2011, 12:46 PM -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC). This is to remind you about the IANA stakeholder meeting to be held on Tuesday, 29th March, 2011 at Afralti. Kindly confirm your attendance before noon on Monday, 28th Marc 2011, by sending an email to info@kenic.or.ke. Regards,.............................David I. Wambua Ag. Chief Executive Officer, Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC), Box 1461 - 00606, Nairobi [E] david@kenic.or.ke[M] +254 733790073 [T] +254 20 2324686, 4450057/8 [F] 4450087 [W] www.kenic.or.ke dot KE for Every Name in Kenya! On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:28 AM, David Wambua wrote: Dear All, September 30, 2011 marks the expiry of the contract between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) that outlines the mandate and functions of IANA. NTIA is seeking public comments to enhance the performance of IANA functions in the development and award of a new IANA functions contract. ICANN currently performs IANA functions on behalf of the US government through a contract with NTIA which is approaching expiry. In this regard, KeNIC wishes to invite all interested parties to a breakfast meeting to collect and collate comments for submission to NTIA before 31st march, 2011. Venue: AfraLTI, Tsunami RoomDate: 29th March 2011Time: 7:30 am Kindly confirm your attendance before noon on Monday, 28th Marc 2011, by sending an email to info@kenic.or.ke. For more information, find attached a document from the Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Regards,.............................David I. Wambua Ag. Chief Executive Officer, Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC), Box 1461 - 00606, Nairobi [E] david@kenic.or.ke[M] +254 733790073 [T] +254 20 2324686, 4450057/8 [F] 4450087 [W] www.kenic.or.ke -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC). <PastedGraphic-1.tiff> dot KE for Every Name in Kenya! <Request for Comments_IANA.doc> _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: david@kenic.or.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/david%40kenic.or.ke -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu@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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_agreement>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
--- On Sat, 3/26/11, McTim <dogwallah@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@gmail.com> wrote: From: McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-my comments To: "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com> Cc: "KICTAnet KICTAnet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 5:04 PM On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu@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 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 over IANA function from the current "Contractual" agreement to a "Cooperation" agreement locally known as an MOA and eventually an non-legal agreement sometimes known as an MoU 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
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@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@gmail.com>/* wrote:
From: McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-my comments To: "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com> Cc: "KICTAnet KICTAnet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 5:04 PM
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com </mc/compose?to=jwalu@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@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: alice@apc.org Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
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@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=comtelsys.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Alice Munyua Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 6:46 PM To: harry@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@gmail.com> <dogwallah@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@gmail.com> <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote: From: McTim <mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com> <dogwallah@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-my comments To: "Walubengo J" <mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com> <jwalu@yahoo.com> Cc: "KICTAnet KICTAnet" <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 5:04 PM On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu@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@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: alice@apc.org Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
McTim, Noted and thank you for your comments. Regards, ............................. David I. Wambua Ag. Chief Executive Officer, Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC), Box 1461 - 00606, Nairobi [E] david@kenic.or.ke [M] +254 733790073 [T] +254 20 2324686, 4450057/8 [F] 4450087 [W] www.kenic.or.ke dot KE for Every Name in Kenya! On Mar 26, 2011, at 5:04 PM, McTim wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu@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 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 over IANA function from the current "Contractual" agreement to a "Cooperation" agreement locally known as an MOA and eventually an non-legal agreement sometimes known as an MoU
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
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC). _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: david@kenic.or.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/david%40kenic.or.ke
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Kenya Network Information Center (KENIC)
ICANN's At Large community, the group in ICANN expected to represent user interests in all aspects of ICANN's work has written a statement covering each of the six questions in the U.S. government's notice of inquiry: <https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+US+National+Telecommunications+and+Information+Administration+%28NTIA%29+Notice+of+Inquiry+%28NOI%29> Apologies, this information is too late for this morning's meeting on the IANA function, but hopefully useful. Best, Adam At 8:21 AM +0300 3/28/11, David Wambua wrote:
McTim,
Noted and thank you for your comments.
Regards, ............................. David I. Wambua Ag. Chief Executive Officer, Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC), Box 1461 - 00606, Nairobi [E] david@kenic.or.ke [M] +254 733790073 [T] +254 20 2324686, 4450057/8 [F] 4450087 [W] www.kenic.or.ke
dot KE for Every Name in Kenya!
On Mar 26, 2011, at 5:04 PM, McTim wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu@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 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 over IANA function from the current "Contractual" agreement to a "Cooperation" agreement locally known as an MOA and eventually an non-legal agreement sometimes known as an MoU
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
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC). _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: david@kenic.or.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/david%40kenic.or.ke
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Kenya Network Information Center (KENIC)
McTim,
Noted and thank you for your comments.
Regards, ............................. David I. Wambua Ag. Chief Executive Officer, Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC), Box 1461 - 00606, Nairobi [E] david<mailto:paul@kenic.or.ke>@kenic.or.ke [M] +254 733790073 [T] +254 20 2324686, 4450057/8 [F] 4450087 [W] <http://www.kenic.or.ke/>www.kenic.or.ke
dot KE for Every Name in Kenya!
On Mar 26, 2011, at 5:04 PM, McTim wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J <<mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com>jwalu@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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority>IANA 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 <http://www.icann.org/>ICANN over IANA function from the current "Contractual" agreement to a "Cooperation" agreement locally known as an <>MOA and eventually an non-legal agreement sometimes known as an <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding>MoU
that's what ICANN says too:
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.kenic.or.ke/> KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC). _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: david@kenic.or.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/david%40kenic.or.ke
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.kenic.or.ke/> KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC).
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: ajp@glocom.ac.jp Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ajp%40glocom.ac.jp
Walubengo Thank you for your contribution. This is very much appreciated and will ensure your comments are included in the forum. Ali Hussein KeNIC Board Member Ali Hussein - Sent from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> Sender: kictanet-bounces+info=alyhussein.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 06:42:23 To: <info@alyhussein.com> Cc: KICTAnet KICTAnet<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-my comments _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: info@alyhussein.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.com
Walubengo, Thank you for your comments. We will have your comments included in the final document before submission. Regards, ............................. David I. Wambua Ag. Chief Executive Officer, Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC), Box 1461 - 00606, Nairobi [E] david@kenic.or.ke [M] +254 733790073 [T] +254 20 2324686, 4450057/8 [F] 4450087 [W] www.kenic.or.ke dot KE for Every Name in Kenya! On Mar 26, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J 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 functions(core operational functions of the Internet). 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 over IANA function from the current "Contractual" agreement to a "Cooperation" agreement locally known as an MOA and eventually an non-legal agreement sometimes known as an MoU
walu. nb: these views are not exclusively mine but reflect the current international thinking by internet industry players. I find them agreeable and maybe the .KE government may wish to interrogate possibly adopt the same.
--- On Fri, 3/25/11, David Wambua <david@kenic.or.ke> wrote:
From: David Wambua <david@kenic.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-REMINDER To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Friday, March 25, 2011, 12:46 PM
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC).
This is to remind you about the IANA stakeholder meeting to be held on Tuesday, 29th March, 2011 at Afralti.
Kindly confirm your attendance before noon on Monday, 28th Marc 2011, by sending an email to info@kenic.or.ke.
Regards, ............................. David I. Wambua Ag. Chief Executive Officer, Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC), Box 1461 - 00606, Nairobi [E] david@kenic.or.ke [M] +254 733790073 [T] +254 20 2324686, 4450057/8 [F] 4450087 [W] www.kenic.or.ke
dot KE for Every Name in Kenya!
On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:28 AM, David Wambua wrote:
Dear All,
September 30, 2011 marks the expiry of the contract between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) that outlines the mandate and functions of IANA.
NTIA is seeking public comments to enhance the performance of IANA functions in the development and award of a new IANA functions contract. ICANN currently performs IANA functions on behalf of the US government through a contract with NTIA which is approaching expiry.
In this regard, KeNIC wishes to invite all interested parties to a breakfast meeting to collect and collate comments for submission to NTIA before 31st march, 2011.
Venue: AfraLTI, Tsunami Room Date: 29th March 2011 Time: 7:30 am
Kindly confirm your attendance before noon on Monday, 28th Marc 2011, by sending an email to info@kenic.or.ke.
For more information, find attached a document from the Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
Regards, ............................. David I. Wambua Ag. Chief Executive Officer, Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC), Box 1461 - 00606, Nairobi [E] david@kenic.or.ke [M] +254 733790073 [T] +254 20 2324686, 4450057/8 [F] 4450087 [W] www.kenic.or.ke
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC). <PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
dot KE for Every Name in Kenya!
<Request for Comments_IANA.doc>
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: david@kenic.or.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/david%40kenic.or.ke
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: jwalu@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC). <IANA PROGRAMME.pdf><PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Kenya Network Information Center (KENIC)
participants (7)
-
Adam Peake -
Alice Munyua -
David Wambua -
Harry Delano -
info＠alyhussein.com -
McTim -
Walubengo J