<html>
<body>
I have to disagree. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#0000FF"><b>
Strawman Proposal 1</b></font><br><br>
<b>4 Status of IANA Functions Operator<br>
</b><br>
a <u>Division of ICANN</u>. The IANA Functions Operator will remain
a division of ICANN.<br><br>
b <u>Enhanced Separability</u>. ICANN will maintain the current
separation between ICANN and IANA, and will make the IANA Functions
Operator more easily separable from ICANN, if separation becomes
necessary at some future time.</blockquote><br>
There was a "Review Committee" but clearly no other entity
holding the contract. Strawman 1 did, nonsensically, posit that the
internal committee could initiate an RFP. for a "new" operator,
but this too confirmed the the "old" operator was
ICANN.<br><br>
The references to an oversight "mechanism" also alluded to
something other than an external contract-holding entity.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 30/11/2014 01:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Frankly, I don't think an
"internal to ICANN" proposal was ever put on the table within
the group prior to Frankfurt in any kind of tangible, concrete
fashion.</blockquote></body>
</html>