This is a good example of what I said in my prior message. Wilkinson opposed the separation of the IFO from ICANN all during the transition process, and has a
view that the IANA functions are a single set of functions that can never be separated. So of course he supports Kurt’s view, because Kurt’s view is inconsistent with the CWG proposal’s objective of legally separating ICANN from IANA
--MM
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 2:51 PM
To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; iotf@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IOTF] Rationale for PTI Staffing Recommendations
Importance: High
Good evening:
At this late stage in the CWG debate, suffice it to say that in the light of my earlier comments on this matter, I support Kurt's approach and I do not support - indeed, I would be against - Greg's approach.
More generally, I am well aware that a discussion of the nuances of this issue could occupy several hours and many pages, that which we do not have time for now.
Further discussion should be informed by a thorough knowledge of international best practice and of Californian and US labour laws. Which I myself and perhaps others do not have.
May I also highlight one of Kurt's comments:
> "If this happens, we have bigger problems than terminating secondments. In this scenario, ICANN and PTI have failed in some way and the ICANN formed in 1998 is broken apart"
Indeed. The multiple international parties to the 1998 creation of ICANN would not stand idly by in such an eventuality. Much else would come back onto the table, potentially of much greater significance than 'separation' or not.
Currently we benefit from the relative success, to date, of the multistakeholder model such that the International Governmental alternative is dormant. Separation would no doubt awake the alternative.
CW
On 16 Jun 2016, at 06:15,
kurt@kjpritz.com wrote: