Milton,

One of the subjects that the CWG has not discussed much is whether there needs to be contract.  I personally think we need to discuss that question regardless of what solution people prefer.

Chuck

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 4:22 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Robert Guerra'; 'cwg-stewardship@icann.org'
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] SAC069: SSAC Advisory on Maintaining the Security and Stability of the IANA Functions Through the Stewardship Transition

> Like the CWG’s own principles  I think they can serve as checks

> when we consider various options.  Let me use the Conservatism

> principle as an example.

Got it, Chuck.

Let’s keep in mind that there has _always_ been an external contracting authority for the IANA functions as long as ICANN has existed. A move to an IANA functions operator without one is an innovation, and could be considered a major departure from the conservatism principle.

While there is room for debate on what option is most ‘conservative,’ I think I am on fairly firm ground when I object to the tendency of advocates of an internal solution to assume away the NTIA, its contract, its contracting cycle, its embeddedness in a particular national government, and the Verisign Cooperative Agreement – as if those things were not deeply important parts of “existing structures, processes and mechanisms.” Let’s be absolutely clear that both systems are instituting change.

--MM