First of these I'm forwarding. I'm sorry this will break the threading on the list. A ----- Forwarded message from Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> ----- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:02:38 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> To: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com> Cc: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>, Steve Crocker <steve@stevecrocker.com>, "IAB@Iab.org" <IAB@iab.org>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAB] [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement List-Id: "Internet Architecture Board \(IAB\)" <iab.iab.org> Hi, I've trimmed some of the cc:s because I'm not really sure why the original was copied all over. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:08:34PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:

The real question relates to context in the transition though: where are core registries and protocol parameters coordinated, if that function is removed from ICANN?

They are co-ordinated exactly where they have been at least since the founding of ICANN: at the IETF. The IETF makes the decisions about the protocol parameters registries. ICANN, in its role as IANA, records those decisions. The ICANN role in this case is basically clerical. The IETF has been perfectly clear about this all the way through the entire process. So has ICANN: that's what the MoU between ICANN and the IETF (and IAB) says. I suppose it would be possible to construct an argument that ICANN had this "co-ordination" function when there was still a Protocol Supporting Organization, but since the PSO went away rather a long time ago, that argument is no longer available in any case. (I happen not to accept that argument anyway, but since it doesn't ramify I don't think it's worth exploring in detail.) Best regards, A (speaking for myself) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com