<p dir="ltr">On Dec 18, 2015 7:27 AM, "Greg Shatan" <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> . It overstates the case to say that the "Post-Transition IANA" is separated from ICANN. That term should be reserved for the time when ICANN is no longer the "parent" of PTI.<br>
><br>
SO: FWIW my +1 to the above statement as it's inline with my understanding as well. That said, I expect that legal wordings will be in place to ensure that IANA functions operation does not unilaterally get moved by ICANN from PTI to another department within ICANN. If that is what Milton is trying to say then I agree to that intent(even though it's outrageous scenario) and I believe that should be a fundamental bylaw text.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> Greg<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Dec 18, 2015 3:15 AM, "Mueller, Milton L" <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > No. We have no problem with having the Scope of Responsibilities be fundamental bylaws,<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > MM: As noted in my previous message, I do have a problem if the scope includes non-core, nonexclusive things that ICANN does. <br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> SO: +1 to this, so it's a matter of checking if the text in the scope is indeed out of remit of ICANN's actual role and responsibilities. Nevermind that this is a repetition of what I had earlier mentioned.<br>
>><br>
>> > <br>
>> ><br>
>> > and that obviously means we expect the Scope of Responsibilities to be fairly stable. Changes to the Scope of Responsibilities should require careful deliberation and considered action by the community as well as the Board. The Mission Statement should be even more stable and hardly ever require amendment.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > <br>
>> ><br>
>> > MM: For ICANN to include its role as IFO as a fundamental bylaw is a backdoor way of resisting and denying one of the most critical reforms of the IANA transition, namely the legal and structural separation of IFO from ICANN and the principle of separability. Sorry, Steve, that isn’t going to happen. Besides, to wrest IANA away from ICANN requires a massively complex process that certainly already qualifies as “careful deliberation and considered action.”<br>
>> ><br>
>> SO: Okay this seem to be becoming wired to me as I no longer understand the intent here, are you saying that ICANN would seize to be the IFO(logically) post-transition? If the intent is to somehow recognise the subsidiary of ICANN (PTI) as the IFO in the fundamental bylaw then I agree otherwise I think having things embedded in fundamental bylaw is most appropriate security because these in itself is a literally fundamental issues of the organisation structure and should be treated as such.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>> > <br>
>> ><br>
>> > <br>
>> ><br>
>> ><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
</p>