[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[John Poole]

James: Under the external Trust model, ICANN is replaceable, but only by
Trustees, representative of, and acting on behalf of the entire global
multistakeholder community, but only then under very limited circumstances
in accordance with the terms of the Trust instrument (and even then subject
to judicial review). But you have made my previous point exactly--I do not
buy the argument that IETF or RIRs somehow should be elevated above others
in the global multistakeholder community, or should be empowered alone to
make that decision unilaterally. The IANA functions belong to the entire
global multistakeholder community, not just IETF or RIRs.
Best regards,
John Poole

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:22 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

>  Perhaps I am showing my ignorance of a nuance here but I would have
> thought it was the other way around, ICANN is replaceable, the IETF and
> RIRs will walk away and select a new IANA functions operator outside of
> ICANN if necessary, or at least that has been my understanding and reading
> of their ICG submissions?
>
>  Very open to correction by more educated people than myself here!
>
>  On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:53, John Poole <jp1 at expri.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150223/c7ebd4c7/attachment.html>