<p dir="ltr">Figured this will be asked and have to be answered at some point but not this early. I think it's just fine to get roles clarified as much as possible at this time in the interest of the future.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.afrinic.net/blog/21-the-journey-to-dublin-and-beyond-iana-stewardship-transition-and-icann-accountability">http://www.afrinic.net/blog/21-the-journey-to-dublin-and-beyond-iana-stewardship-transition-and-icann-accountability</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 3 Nov 2015 01:55, "Padmini" <<a href="mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com">pdmnbaruah@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">In light of this thread, does it then make sense to completely separate the three functions post the transition? </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 2 Nov 2015 22:22, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I've trimmed some of the cc:s because I'm not really sure why the<br>
original was copied all over.<br>
<br>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:08:34PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:<br>
> The real question relates to context in the transition though: where are<br>
> core registries and protocol parameters coordinated, if that function is<br>
> removed from ICANN?<br>
<br>
They are co-ordinated exactly where they have been at least since the<br>
founding of ICANN: at the IETF. The IETF makes the decisions about<br>
the protocol parameters registries. ICANN, in its role as IANA,<br>
records those decisions. The ICANN role in this case is basically<br>
clerical. The IETF has been perfectly clear about this all the way<br>
through the entire process. So has ICANN: that's what the MoU between<br>
ICANN and the IETF (and IAB) says.<br>
<br>
I suppose it would be possible to construct an argument that ICANN had<br>
this "co-ordination" function when there was still a Protocol<br>
Supporting Organization, but since the PSO went away rather a long<br>
time ago, that argument is no longer available in any case. (I happen<br>
not to accept that argument anyway, but since it doesn't ramify I<br>
don't think it's worth exploring in detail.)<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A (speaking for myself)<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>