This issue (separate or integrated IANA functions operators) is really an issue that CCWG has nothing to say about. It was already decided by the three operational
communities that each IFO would be separable, and protocols and numbers already have clear ways of separating from ICANN, whereas names has a very difficult and complicated process for doing so.
CCWG touches on this issue ONLY insofar as the instructions of the separation process must be enforceable somehow (for ONLY the names community).
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Padmini
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 7:01 AM
To: BestBits; governance@lists.igcaucus.org; Accountability Cross Community; NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Do we need a unified post-transition IANA?
Dear all,
(Apologies for cross posting at the outset)
At the Centre for Internet and Society, we found ourselves wondering why there was a strong presumption in favour of unified IANA functions after the transition, given that there was at one point of time significant
amounts of discourse on splitting these functions. Even as we all debate over the extent of ICANN's coordinating functions over the different functions, perhaps we could open our - minds to the idea of separating the three functions - names, numbers, protocols
- after the transition.
This idea has been detailed in the blog post below. The three main points we make are :
http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tranistion-iana
We welcome comments on this.
Warm Regards
Padmini
Centre for Internet and Society
Bangalore