Steve - I think this is a misinterpretation of the ICANN letter. What I read says to replace the contract with a cooperative agreement. This is a good idea and the BC should support. It is entirely consistent with regular reviews, ATRT, etc. The "evil" procurement style contract was foisted on a very unwilling ICANN CEO and Board in late 98 by DOD/NTIA lawyers covering their backs. As ICANN says, it makes no sense. This is not a procurement situation, it is basically a public service/public trust effort, which a cooperative agreement is designed to support. - Mike At 1:33 PM +0000 4/1/11, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Just sharing the NetChoice comment on IANA (attached).
We took a different tack than ETNO, because we are concerned about ICANN's 'commitment' to the Affirmation of Commitments.
Before responding to specific questions in the RfC, we address the comment filed by ICANN on March 25, arguing to remove Commerce Department review of IANA function performance. For reasons explained below, we believe that Commerce must retain regular IANA contract reviews in order to hold ICANN to its Affirmation of Commitments.
-- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
Content-Type: application/x-msword; name="NetChoice on IANA Contract.pdf" Content-Description: NetChoice on IANA Contract.pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="NetChoice on IANA Contract.pdf"; size=116715; creation-date="Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:35:18 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:35:18 GMT" Content-ID: <a652597f-e692-4cfa-a36b-009716c26ae6>
Attachment converted: HD 500:NetChoice on IANA Contract.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0118ECC9)