[CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> It seems to me that there are two different ways this could be true (if it be
> true at all).
> 
> One is that the Board is the locus through which policy issues around names
> get sorted out.  If that's true, then it is an issue about how the policy-

Yes, this is the only meaningful sense in which ICANN can be called a regulator.

> That is indeed an important issue, but I'm not sure it is directly related to
> the IANA transition as such.

Sigh. It is related because in all other operational communities, the policy making function is separated from the IANA function. In DNS it is not. This is why the IANA transition for names is more difficult; or rather, this is why it is relatively easy for IETF and the RIRs to establish the most important and basic form of accountability (re-contracting or separability) and why it is very difficult for names to do so.