Greg very much well said. Not to say that IANA is not an entity but a Function. A function that directly impacts on the Number community. I agree with what some of you said lets look at all options. I would argue that we need to see all the options quite fast as well to really move things forward.
For information sake the NRO/ IETF or if we want to be sure consisted of the as they loosely called themselves the I* leaders:-
AFRINIC, ARIN, APNIC, IAB, ICANN, IETF, ISOC, LACNIC, RIPE NCC, W3C & LACTLD - should be ccTLD
There focus is on Numbers and we have to agree to that they have a particular bit in what makes it work in the addressing and infrastructure part. What APNIC have come up is not sole to APNIC but something that these I* leaders have agreed onto. It is less complicated for them as i suggested before.
For interest sake i am attaching some information docs. And a bit of the NRO view on accountability:
The NRO
does not believe that the contract with the US government should be replaced
with a similar mechanism at a global level, therefore a guiding principle is
specifically not to create any "superior" structure or organisation;
rather ICANN's accountability should be defined in terms of transparent
agreements with ICANN stakeholders, in which roles and responsibilities, and
dispute resolution and arbitration mechanisms are fully defined. We believe
that a failure by ICANN to abide clearly by established accountability
mechanisms, and in particular by defined dispute resolution and arbitration
mechanisms should have clear consequences, and therefore that arbitration
mechanisms should be binding. Furthermore, they must be implementable and
effective upon ICANN, regardless of its final structure or locale.The guiding
principles for defining or strengthening these accountability mechanisms should
be: that they are transparent, implementable and open to improvement; and that
they operate in the interests of the open, stable and secure operation of the
Internet.
I hope this gives away some input.