On 29 Nov 2014 21:04, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>
> Alan-thank you for sharing your thoughtful concerns – and thanks as well to Olivier, Milton, and others who have responded to it with equal thoughtfulness.
>
>  
>
> ·         As an attorney I am quite comfortable with the concept of a Contract Co. as the accountability mechanism, while recognizing that there are many details yet to be filled in, which is the problem when you are trying to build an airplane while flying it. But I recognize that the alternatives broached by Alan and others may be worthy of exploration, even if to be eventually dismissed, in the process of achieving broad consensus.
>
Interesting you already concluded other options will fall prey of being dismissed. Maybe it's just the way we have all been  systematically swayed into believing there is an extraordinary gold mining in what IANA does and the only way to secure it is by contracting.
As I have said before, we will only be deceiving ourselves by saying a contracting route in the manner presented is the only way to ensure Accountability of the IANA operator... there are just 2 things required:

- Maintain current separation of IANA department to allow for separability.
- Ensure IANA record keeping is done by policy

To achieve that without creating all the complicated entities et all. This community needs to recognise that IANA is set of bounded functions that does not need to be separated at the moment. It is at that point that a legal way to reflect those 2 features above can then be determined.