<div dir="ltr"><div>Avri:<br></div>Thank you for your reply (below). I do not agree that ICG "precluded any solution that focused on maintaining a single IANA."<br>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.<div>Best regards,<br></div><div>John Poole<br></div><div><br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:50:39 -0500<br>
From: Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:54EB5A5F.1090400@acm.org">54EB5A5F.1090400@acm.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
On 23-Feb-15 10:34, John Poole wrote:<br>
><br>
> 4. I do not understand your statement (below) "as was foredained by<br>
> the ICG?" When and where did ICG "foredain" the idea of splitting IANA?<br>
<br>
By dividing the topic as they did, they precluded any solution that<br>
focused on maintaining a single IANA. By creating a framework that<br>
precluded integrated models, they fore ordained, in my opinion, that an<br>
operational split in IANA would persist at the conceptual level.<br>
<br>
Adding that the Protocol operational community has, and wishes to<br>
maintain, a contract that says they could split IANA with 6 months<br>
notice means that all solutions for the IANA Stewardship Transition will<br>
be subject to splitting as the solution to Protocols and Numbers issues.<br>
I beleive we need solutions that help make that less likely to happen.<br>
<br>
avri<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>