Hi, Further thoughts on this point. On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator
It is true, the Stewardship for Names will remain with ICANN and the Stewardship for the others will remian with those operational communities. IANA, however, which is still the ultimate root of the Internet for Names, Numbers and Protocols, is still a critical entity. I know that I am perhaps in a minority that values the unity of IANA, nonetheless, I think that moving the function away from the current IANA group, moving any of the functions away from the current group, is something that we must attempt to avoid and must do with the greatest of care if necessary to do so. So if it became time to move the IFO function and possibly to split it, I think that calls for an all hands on deck community action. I personally believe that should be the case if any of the operational communities come to the conclusion that it is time to to move their segment of the IFO, but I know that is not our concern. In this case, however, since ICANN would, under the current assumption, be the service provider for Numbers and Protocols, and the parent company for the affiliate or subsidiary serving Names, it would only make sense to take this very seriously and not just as the act of finding a new technical service provider for the IFO. I think that is part of what would be required of us as the stewards for the root of the Internet. That is part of why I think it is a very serious community process and not just the search for a new technical provider. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com