[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi,

How does this proposal address the few points below:

- ICANN is running IANA properly and should continue to be the operator
- ICANN is purpose built with it's main purpose of centrally operating IANA
for the 3 communities
- The task at hand is to transition IANA stewardship, is the proposal not
doing more than that?
- Based on the response given by Milton, the practical implication of this
proposal seem to imply absolute separation between IANA functions so names
operation is no longer under ICANN oversight. If that is correct are we
still within scope of our task by proposing that?
- What does the proposal intend to address; separability OR separation?

Thanks

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 21 Feb 2015 00:19, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> On 20-Feb-15 16:50, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>  My question:
>
>
>
> Does this model provide for separability?
>
>
>
>
> First it provides structural separation in all configurations.  That is a
> first level of severability and hopefully as much as really is ever
> needed.  Additionally, in this model, ICANN would have the same ability to
> pick another provider, or perhaps a redundant provider, just as the names
> or protocols can now.  This is made possible by virtue of structural
> separation and the defintion of SLA/MOUs across a corporate boundary.
>
> Further levels of separability can, however, be obtained in the Shared
> Service Arrangement configuration or the finally in the Free Standing
> configuration.
>
> Finally
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150221/021ffc77/attachment.html>