Andrew, all:

On 1 September 2015 at 09:33, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 07:08:19AM +1200, Jordan Carter wrote:
> Is the ICANN board allowed to agree to a separation of the IANA functions
> operator, given its fiduciary duties to the corporation?

It'd be hard not to, given that it has had that agreement with the
IETF for many years.  If the answer is, "No," we're going to have a
very rocky future ahead.


On the face of it I don't think there is an issue with numbers and protocols. Those communities have agreements with ICANN and can I suppose appoint alternative operators regardless of what ICANN thinks. That is how the principle of separability is upheld in their proposals.

The question is still interesting as it might guide ICANN's response to a decision by such a community to move the operator - e.g. would it feel obliged to oppose such a change.

The complexity, as usual, arises with names :-(  

I would be grateful for knowledge from CWG participants on the question, in respect of the names process, but also whether it was considered for the others.

I keep coming back to the status quo. At the moment, the USG can reassign the functions. We need to be careful that, given there is a principle of separability, it isn't rendered inoperable by the CWG's proposal through this matter.

best
Jordan
 


--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ

+64-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz 
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet