Martin and Greg I think Martin is correct here and I hope people are not using this terminological debate as a proxy war for internal vs. external. The principle of separability is well established and accepted, so as Martin suggests it makes no sense to describe the IANA functions operator in a way that identifies it with ICANN in our descriptions. --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle The terminology, “IANA functions operator” has to cope with the concept that it is a small team in a big organisation (currently as a team in the Global Domains Division of ICANN) through to it being structurally separated to an entity as yet unknown but which might be entirely independent of any other body – say Trotters Independent Traders (New York, Paris, Peckham). Hence the choice of the word “entity.” However, interpreting the IANA functions operator as ICANN does not make sense when read in 9.i: “To separate ICANN from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does not make sense. “To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes” does.