[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[John Poole]

Avri:
Thank you for your reply (below). I do not agree that ICG "precluded any
solution that focused on maintaining a single IANA."
In addition, if IETF or RIRs or anyone else--governments included--choose
not to participate in IANA or ICANN, let them walk--no one is
irreplaceable. ICANN, the IANA functions operator, should never be subject
to extortionate demands from any source.
Best regards,
John Poole

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:50:39 -0500
> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.
> Message-ID: <54EB5A5F.1090400 at acm.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On 23-Feb-15 10:34, John Poole wrote:
> >
> > 4. I do not understand your statement (below) "as was foredained by
> > the ICG?" When and where did ICG "foredain" the idea of splitting IANA?
>
> By dividing the topic as they did, they precluded any solution that
> focused on maintaining a single IANA. By creating a framework that
> precluded integrated models, they fore ordained, in my opinion,  that an
> operational split in IANA would persist at the conceptual level.
>
> Adding that the Protocol operational community has, and wishes to
> maintain,  a contract that says they could split IANA  with 6 months
> notice means that all solutions for the IANA Stewardship Transition will
> be subject to splitting as the solution to Protocols and Numbers issues.
> I beleive we need solutions that help make that less likely to happen.
>
> avri
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150223/0dddca22/attachment.html>