Hi all Some thoughts, that are thinking aloud more than any kind of personal or organisational definitive position... Most of us seem to agree that: - the community should be able to assign the IANA functions to another operator (the "who decides" question) - such a reassignment should only happen after a clear escalation path that provides teeth to solve problems - the need is for a durable and reliable way to achieve this principle There seems to be disagreement about: - the practicality and durability differences between a bylaws-based internal way to allow separation and an external/contract co based way of doing so - the pros and cons of each model in a balanced way between internal and external assuming both are legally durable and workable - e.g. - accountability issues and outcomes - resource requirements to operate - perception issues within ICANN and more broadly - the linkage of this decision to the overall accountability picture for ICANN (no contract with an external party v contract with an external party I still think that the hybrid model in terms of stronger functional or structural separation of the IANA operations from ICANN the corporation (the hybrid models) is a separate category of beast. It is desirable to have IANA more separated in terms of clarity of budget, operational responsibility, personnel, policy v implementation, etc etc - regardless of whether this makes separating it easier. It's about how that debate relates to the likely maintenance and improvement of its performance, where clear accountabilities of that sort should help. I should be clear as I have said before that I regard many of the points of disagreement as practical and evidence based, depending a lot on: a) the specifics of each model in detail b) clearly agreed criteria against which to test the models - stress tests included, as piloted by the CCWG in respect of their work c) the linkage with accountability improvements more broadly Since people are asking me, I should state that my own view is a) at a systemic level, we have a responsibility to consider the benefits of concentrating the responsibility for all this work in one entity versus a more distributed solution (the status quo is more distributed, between NTIA and ICANN) b) in implementing separability, both an internal and an external model could probably work legally, c) the factors by which we should choose between them probably revolve around - the point at a) - is the global situation of DNS stewardship best served by distribution of roles or concentration; - important but secondary matters like accountability, response to stress testing, of the detailed models I've said a number of times that I am not religious about this debate. If we can have a workable internal solution that is consistent with what we need, I don't see why we should not have it. The Sidley comments so far help persuade that in a narrow sense either an external or an internal model could work. If that is the case, then it is the bigger picture (distributed v concentrated stewardship, and detail of implementation and the second order merits etc), that will end up being the deciding factors. What do you reckon? Let's see what we get out of this session.... cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *