<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi<br>
<br>
My understanding of where we were at the end of the meeting was that
1) we discussed the various options, 2) nothing is decided and 3)
there was no discussion of consensus (nor from my perspective was
there any sense that option 2 described by Avri below was the agreed
option). There was discussion (and that was all) that it might be
preferable to allow the Periodic Review Team to make decisions as to
what the contract period is and what the mechanisms for renewal
are. However, until we have discussed the detail as to the
composition, independence, powers, etc., of the Periodic Review Team
I would argue that it is to early to suggest that we are anywhere
near consensus.<br>
<br>
I echo Avri and Milton's concerns. A proposal that does not fully
account for the operational <u>and</u> stewardship roles of the
NTIA would be inadequate. Strong separability - the ability to
withdraw the contract from ICANN and to award it to another party
through a process that is independent of ICANN and based on RFPs and
a term-limited contract - is essential. BTW - this is what we have
at the moment and it has not impaired nor threatened operational
stability.<br>
<br>
Matthew <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/24/2014 8:20 AM, Olivier MJ
Crepin-Leblond wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5472EA3A.7040508@gih.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>1. Strong separability: every n (n= 2-7?) years a new RFP is released</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a>
+ 44 771 247 2987</pre>
</body>
</html>