[CWG-Stewardship] Final response from DT-M regarding public comments

[Milton L Mueller]

has been on maintaining the status quo (albeit without the NTIA's involvement).  Indeed, ICANN's ultimate responsibility for the IANA Functions is a core value in the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, so completely exiting the "IANA Functions business" at all levels would require serious changes in governance documents, etc., etc., which would run up against the powers relating to changing bylaws that the CCWG contemplates.

MM: I find this assertion troublesome. ICANN has responsibility for developing policies and for seeing that its policies are implemented, yes. But the whole principle of separability means that ICANN does not have a monopoly on the supply of the implementation service, and the community can, if it wants, ditch ICANN’s IFO and choose another. This means that it could, and must, be able to “exit the IANA functions business.” What you mean, I hope, is that it could never exit the responsibility for contracting to have someone (else) to do them.

There may be practical limitations -- imagine the uproar if a unilateral, top-down decision was taken to outsource the IANA Functions to the Root Zone Management Company (http://www.rootzonemanagement.com.au/about.htm). But an "uproar" is not an enforceable right or prohibition.

So I would agree that this is a "hole" or at least an unanticipated angle on this issue.

Greg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150605/0af1c8ed/attachment.html>