Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
Dear Nigel, I too respect this source. However ICANN staff as well as others have since then provided some clarifications. The statement below does not, apparently, capture ICANN's position. We may not be wasting our time, after all. Regarding the ability to move IANA out of ICANN, I will point you to the CWG report, which expressly addresses this issue, which it refers to as Separation. Others on this list could provide further details I'm sure. Best, Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Le 5 mai 2015 à 16:34, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> a écrit :
"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 http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
Nigel, I am not sure any longer whether he is just intransigent or whether he has taken instructions. The CWG has not addressed, AT ALL, administrative and/or operational accountability the IANA function, they have worked from the premise that all is hunky dory. Moving (the) IANA (Function) to voodo-cuckoo-land was not what you asked about, nor does it address anything, never what the CWG has managed to come down with. And we are not doing any better. But the gNSO is goig to be happy, that's important. el On 2015-05-05 17:23, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Nigel,
I too respect this source. However ICANN staff as well as others have since then provided some clarifications. The statement below does not, apparently, capture ICANN's position. We may not be wasting our time, after all.
Regarding the ability to move IANA out of ICANN, I will point you to the CWG report, which expressly addresses this issue, which it refers to as Separation. Others on this list could provide further details I'm sure.
Best,
Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Le 5 mai 2015 à 16:34, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> a écrit :
"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 [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
participants (2)
-
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Mathieu Weill