[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Milton L Mueller]

seem that the proposal attempts to practically create a new operator order than ICANN (re: PTI)
MM: But the PTI is just ICANN’s current IANA department, is it not?
being the operator and turns ICANN to a "policy only" organisation. That seem like a major change in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) mission and purpose.
MM: Not really, because the current IANA contract requires a significant level of separation.
How will this work with ccTLDs who for instance are practically engaging with ICANN just because it is the IANA operator?
MM: It should make them very happy, because they can deal with IANA directly and independently and not through the medium of ICANN’s gTLD policy making morass
how about existing gTLD contracts which were signed with the intent of ICANN being the operator?
MM: If IANA is a subsidiary of ICANN this is not an issue; if it is not the modifications required are minor as long as IANA is contractually bound to implement legitimately passed ICANN policies. IANA is an ancillary aspect of the registry agreement; it is referenced only once regarding emergency transition and in the final convenants where ICANN agrees to implement RZF changes within 7 days of request. I don’t see how that would be difficult to transfer that obligation to an SLA negotiated with the new IANA.
Looking at the proposal, how do we achieve accountability of the "community board"? i mean why should one be comfortable that the "community board" will be more accountable than the current ICANN board?
MM: That’s easy. In part, because it is directly accountable to IANA customers. And also because (I think) the functions contract could be transferred to someone else.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150223/033e754f/attachment.html>