This is not complicated, nor is it a proxy war for anything. This has nothing to do with separability.

I'm merely trying to parse out the generic term or terms

My point is this. There are two groups one can identify with the provision of the IANA Functions:

1. The team of people that perform the service (currently a group of people under Elise Gerich; sometimes referred to as the "IANA Root Zone Management staff" for clarity (see https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation))

2. The entity that houses (1), along with a lot of other people and stuff (currently, ICANN).

I am perfectly happy for "IANA Functions Operator" to refer to Group (1) and not Group (2). If that's the case, I would not use the term "entity" in the footnote, which now reads "The term IANA functions operator refers to the entity that provides the service." I believe the term "entity" is confusing. The IANA Root Zone Management staff is not an entity. ICANN is an entity, but then you are bringing Group (2) into the definition. The IANA Functions Operator could be an entity in the future, but it is not now an entity. Hence, my confusion. I suggest modifying the footnote as follows, for clarity:

"The term "IANA Functions Operator" means the group that performs the service." If "group" isn't quite right, perhaps "unit"?

If that is the case, do we need a generic term for Group (2)? Maybe we don't, at least not in the Principles document. If we don't, I suggest one change below to avoid ambiguity.

In 7(ii) and 8(iii), where the term ICANN is used, it is clearly not referring to ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator, but to ICANN as the policy-making and contracting body. Things get muddy in Section 9(i), which says "To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN) if warranted and in line with agreed processes." In order to avoid ambiguity i would suggest modifying 9(i) to state:

"To separate the IANA Functions from the current operator (i.e. ICANN (as the IANA Functions Operator)) if warranted and in line with agreed processes"

Greg

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

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.