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.
Š
--
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)