[CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

[Milton L Mueller]

Thanks for helping to highlight where you and I diverge, Milton.  I’d take changing the operator a lot more seriously than you!

MM: I don’t think we actually do diverge on this issue, Martin. See below.

So whoever takes the IANA functions operator role will need to be aware of the back story and be able to command trust.  It is not straight-forward and while I am sure there’s a long list of people who would be able to update names, protocol parameters and the gTLD part of the TLD registries, I still struggle to think of who might be able to do the ccTLD piece and would also be generally trusted.  (Clue – it is not a TLD or a consortium of TLDs.)

MM: The IANA Functions operator (IFO) should simply take ICANN’s instructions. One benefit of a separated IFO would be the ability to more clearly separate those sensitive policy decisions that should really be made by ICANN, and those implementations that should be done by the IFO. I agree with you that ccTLD redelegations can be more sensitive than gTLD delegations, I don’t think the IFO should have discretion to make those decisions, it should simply edit the zone file as directed. Do you disagree?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150430/68b04259/attachment.html>