<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">Hi Jordan,<br><br>Let me make another attempt to clarify my point<br><br>On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jordan Carter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Seun,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On 17 December 2014 at 18:21, Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>I am afraid you're not getting the point. That contractual and organisational separation is very important. It is the *fact* of that separation between entities and managing relationships by contract that allows us all to feel comfortable.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think you are mis-understanding my point which is that gTLD at the moment ONLY has its home in ICANN. Yes contractual approach is currently been used for gTLD because there is no sense of strong accountability within the organisation. If there is then need to continue the contractual route it can ONLY work in the manner currently being used i.e an entirely independent organisation (like the RIR, IETF, ccTLD, NTIA) makes a service agreement with the operator. However as we have now identified the need to transition oversight to multistakeholder, that can ONLY be effective by implementing mechanism within an organisation that allows the multistakholder community feel somewhat in charge. <br><br></div><div>It does not make any diagrammatic sense(talkless of it making a practical sense) saying a contractor will rely on the resources of the operator in order to perform its duties.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I genuinely can't understand why you think that adding it into one organisation and removing all that is OK - or even more concerningly, that you don't seem to understand how big a change that would be.</div><span class=""><div> </div></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div>I do hope you do understand my point based on above now. Otherwise do let me know what/where <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><span><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I can't imagine how that would be OK. It would be a giant concentration of power in one place and would create an all-powerful central institution for names management (absent massive cultural and structural changes at ICANN). </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>From my explanation (how i understand it) above, i hope you agree that its not in anyway a new thing and like i said, if Verisign is willing to continue maintaining (which i expect has cost implication) then one would envision an agreement between ICANN and Verisign that ensures the authorisation source remains single as it currently is.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>No, we don't agree - as above. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class=""><div><br></div><span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Even if ICANN transitions to a more accountable organisation in terms of what it does, that doesn't balance out the very far-reaching change you seem to have suggested of putting all the pieces in one basket.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span></span><div>The way i understand it, there has always been a basket, just that the basket gets sighted by another party i.e NTIA (without NTIA changing its content) before it arrives Verisign who then load the content of the basket in the store.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What if one person controls the whole process, as you are proposing? That's the nub of my concern. </div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div>The whole process has always been from one source (i.e the IANA operator) so what its important is ensuring that instruction sent from the source is as expected. This does not require any external body to look at but require internal mechanism that ensure the operator does not send information that is not inline with the community's policy (which will largely require the bylaw/policy rewording)<br><br></div><div>Regards<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div></div><div>Jordan</div><div> </div></font></span></div><span class="">-- <br><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.</i><br><br></div></div>
</span></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">web: </span><a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Mobile: <a value="+2348035233535">+2348035233535</a></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><br></i><i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453" target="_blank"> </a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></span></i><br><br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The key to understanding is humility - my view !<br></blockquote></blockquote></font><br></div></div>
</div></div>