<p dir="ltr">Hi John,</p>
<p dir="ltr">While this is not the place to discuss RIR and IETF engagement process. Perhaps it's useful to note that the RIR process of developing it's proposal was done in an open manner; open for any member of the global community to contribute. Same can also be said about the IETF but I can speak more confidently about the RIR since I was more involved in that process.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I also believe that ICG would run public comments period after compiling the first single transition proposal which will give opportunity for anyone interested to further comment. So I don't think any unilateral decision was/has been made so far in this process.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 23 Feb 2015 22:23, "John Poole" <<a href="mailto:jp1@expri.com">jp1@expri.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><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">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.<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Best regards,<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">John Poole<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br>On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:22 PM, James Gannon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net" target="_blank">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
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?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Very open to correction by more educated people than myself here!</div><span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On 23 Feb 2015, at 19:53, John Poole <<a href="mailto:jp1@expri.com" target="_blank">jp1@expri.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important">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.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></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>