With respect, given what NTIA has said publicly, this "fear" can only be based on the management's self-fulfilling wish. To the contrary, I think the =most= likely way for the NTIA to reject a proposal is for the management to frustrate the communities will .... Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:31 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for clarification - Ominous update on the IANA transition This is concerning:
"...there have been various discussions between various members of the CANN management and various community leaders on concerns about some of the proposals from the IETF, RIRs, and naming community regarding separability. These concerns have been raised in the context of the fear that the proposals may make it harder to get approval from the US Government."
Non-separability is not among the five criteria established by NTIA in their March 2014 announcement. Where does this so-called "fear" originate? Separability is a core feature of the IETF's existing MOU...why would a continuation of that principle be a threat to the transition? It does not compute. Regards, Keith
On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:48 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
there have been various discussions between various members of the CANN management and various community leaders on concerns about some of the proposals from the IETF, RIRs, and naming community regarding separability. These concerns have been raised in the context of the fear that the proposals may make it harder to get approval from the US Government.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community