Just to make sure this goes to the CCWG list too. But, my experience of the the years is, that if Bill Woodcock says it is so than it is so. el On 2015-05-05 17:52, Stephen Deerhake wrote:

The transcript of the discussion which took place when the slide deck containing this quote is well worth the time to read it:

https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_35/ppm1_transcript.ht...

...

From that transcript:

"... what we understand from discussion with ICANN legal team is that they are reticent about the termination clauses."

So is this apparent pushback coming from ICANN Staff, ICANN Board, or Jones Day?

/Stephen

-----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-members@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 12:24 PM To: Nigel Roberts; ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; cctldworld@icann.org Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-members] Re: [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition

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.

[...]

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 [...]>

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/