[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:32:40PM +0000, Martin Boyle wrote:
> I think that Greg is right, that we were not mandated in the CWG to look at numbers or protocol parameters.  While that might sit uneasily, I’m not sure I really know about the flow of funding or the accountability/stewardship role in the light of Milton’s assertion.
> 

I believe here are two completely different things here.

1.  The IANA functions -- all of them -- move from inside ICANN to the
affiliate.  This is how ICANN performs the IANA functions.  The agreements with other parties can remain between ICANN and those other parties, but that does not affect the "how ICANN gets IANA done."

2.  The names IANA function gets all the accountability rules and so
on we've been talking about.  That's the "names community proposal".
This part really is names-only.

If follows from these two premises, however, that ICANN needs also to
undertake some sort of agreement with PTI about how the other
communities' needs get satisfied.  Presumably, if the other
communities maintain an agreement with ICANN, then ICANN concludes an
agreement with PTI that says, "You implement that."  The details of
how that is worked out, however, are not our problem and we don't need
to have an opinion about it reflected in this document, I think.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com