Speaking for myself, I find all of this pretty upsetting, particularly since ICANN seems to be blaming the USG for this position, and my impression is that the USG doesn¹t share this perspective at all. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 5/5/15, 10:34 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
"ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity."
If this statement, made publicly, and from a respected source, is literally true, aren't we all wasting our time??
Surely a starting point HAS to be that we (ccTLDs) need the accountability that potentially the ccTLD part of IANA role could be moved if the current function operator does not come up to scratch?
What does the CCWG think?
Nigel Roberts _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmana gers.org_mailman_listinfo_cctldcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=4VZqWjmswnfEoPxKQ9x6B2Yq_ v2U69H_zpJiiqcrCpk&s=UPu4q5iiJtlrv34Y13NGjaUT9GAKtgwWqQKVh4rDqGE&e=
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org