[CCWG-ACCT] [IAB] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement

[Padmini]

In light of this thread,  does it then make sense to completely separate
the three functions post the transition?
On 2 Nov 2015 22:22, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've trimmed some of the cc:s because I'm not really sure why the
> original was copied all over.
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:08:34PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> > The real question relates to context in the transition though: where are
> > core registries and protocol parameters coordinated, if that function is
> > removed from ICANN?
>
> They are co-ordinated exactly where they have been at least since the
> founding of ICANN: at the IETF.  The IETF makes the decisions about
> the protocol parameters registries.  ICANN, in its role as IANA,
> records those decisions.  The ICANN role in this case is basically
> clerical.  The IETF has been perfectly clear about this all the way
> through the entire process.  So has ICANN: that's what the MoU between
> ICANN and the IETF (and IAB) says.
>
> I suppose it would be possible to construct an argument that ICANN had
> this "co-ordination" function when there was still a Protocol
> Supporting Organization, but since the PSO went away rather a long
> time ago, that argument is no longer available in any case.  (I happen
> not to accept that argument anyway, but since it doesn't ramify I
> don't think it's worth exploring in detail.)
>
> Best regards,
>
> A (speaking for myself)
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151102/5eecb9a9/attachment.html>