<p dir="ltr">Hi Alan,</p>
<p dir="ltr">The RIR in it's proposal has indicated it would prefer to sign it's agreement with ICANN directly (most likely IETF would do the same). Both contracts allows either party to withdraw their service based on defined notice period. <br>
So yes, such move by RIR for instance would practically mean that the last N of ICANN is no longer in operation. ASO is currently there because there is an agreement between ICANN and NRO and I don't expect that agreement to survive if ICANN no longer operates numbers part of the function.</p>
<p dir="ltr">That said, with respect to Avri's writeup, I am also wondering what the full separation of affiliate mean since I now understand affiliate to mean an entity not "owned" by ICANN. If there is going to be any further separation, I would think initiating an RFP process and moving the function to another operator would be the case; ICANN is now the steward not PTI</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quot<blockquote class=" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
I don't think that is quite correct. Certainly, with or without ICANN
moving the RZM away from the current IANA, the IETF and RIRs could in
theory decide to stop using IANA and move their registries to TGNIITS
(The Great New IANA in the Sky).<br><br>
I do not know the implication of the RIRs moving to TGNIITS. We still
have the ASO in ICANN, and they still in theory recommend address policy
to the ICANN Board. It is less clear whether the RIR agreement with
TGNIITS requires them to abide by ICANN directives related to addresses.
If it does, it is still business as usual for us. If the new agreement
with TGNIITS does NOT require adherance to our policy, then it would be
interesting who they have replacing us. <br><br>
So the question is less about separation and more on whose authority are
we doing what we are now doing. And I don't think there is a real answer
other than one based on history. <br><br>
But I do not think that it truly hinges on where the current IANA
function resides, as long as the other agreements, written and more
importantly unwritten, do not change.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 14/05/2015 10:02 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi, Alan.<br><br>
In your scenario: IFO for names moves to another entity with ICANN
retaining "stewardship".<br><br>
Numbers and Protocol Parameters communities have options to consider
(i.e., follow or don't follow). <br><br>
If they do not follow (and assuming they do not stay with ICANN either),
ICANN's mission fundamentally changes and ICANN would become ICAN.
<br><br>
Is this correct as a possible outcome of this separation?<br><br>
Rinalia<br>
On May 15, 2015 8:21 AM, "Alan Greenberg"
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>My understanding is that "separation" changes who the IANA
Function Operator is and possibly the specifics of how it is connected to
ICANN. But ICANN remains the steward of the function.<br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd>Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<br><br>
<dd>On May 14, 2015 7:35:12 PM EDT, Eduardo Diaz
<<a href="mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com" target="_blank">
eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Avri:<br><br>
<dd>The fifth separation mechanism is basically the creation of a
Contract CO. Is this correct?<br><br>
<dd>-ed<br><br>
<dd>On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Avri Doria
<<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>hi,<br><br>
<dd>On 14-May-15 23:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
<dd>> Avri,<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Why would the recommendations of this review need to be approved
by the ICANN board?<br><br>
<dd>That is one of the questions asked?<br>
<dd>Most reviews are approved by the Board before they have further
action.<br>
<dd>Isn't it part of the check and balances. And if they don't
agree isn't<br>
<dd>that why we have the various redress mechanisms?<br><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> The fifth possible separation mechanism is " Initiate full
separation of the IANA affiliate". Does this mean separation
of PTI from ICANN?<br><br>
<dd>Yes. one of the option in the various models we discussed was
an<br>
<dd>independent free standing PTI depending on the circumstances,
this<br>
<dd>might an option those responsible at the time might want to
consider.<br>
<dd>As I said in the meeting today, I think the point is avoid presaging
the<br>
<dd>type of decision they might need to take.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<dd>avri<br>
</dd></font><br><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Chuck<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> -----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>> From:
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">
mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Avri
Doria<br>
<dd>> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 6:19 PM<br>
<dd>> To:
<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation
Process<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Hi,<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> I did an update on the file.<br>
<dd>>
<<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WvBqtgXJ7rNrbN-5Tjf5-gi80aZ2oRYDtF_JLrETRqg/edit?usp=sharing</a>
><br>
<dd>> and attached a pdf version to this note.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> * Received some comments which I tried to include<br>
<dd>> * Responded to Sibley comments, I think<br>
<dd>> * Largely separated the process from who does it<br>
<dd>> * left bracketed text on the sticky decisions, which
include:<br>
<dd>> o who dies it:<br>
<dd>> + [A cross community of the
SOAC would be formed, The IFR<br>
<dd>> would be
designated]<br>
<dd>> o how it is initiated:<br>
<dd>> + on the recommendation of
the IANA Review Function as<br>
<dd>> approved by [Board,
SOAC, members council], or in the case<br>
<dd>> of Board rejection via
escalation procedure.<br>
<dd>> + on supermajority
recommendation of both GNSO & ccNSO<br>
<dd>> + on recommendation of 1 SO
and 2 ACs<br>
<dd>> o method of operation<br>
<dd>> + The Separation Review would
be either a(decision to be made<br>
<dd>> by CWG)<br>
<dd>> #<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> A
process initiated in the IFR<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> #<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Function
as a Cross Community Working Group and would<br>
<dd>> follow
established guidelines for multistakeholder cross<br>
<dd>>
community working groups. In this case the participants<br>
<dd>> would be
either (decision to be made by CWG):<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> 1.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Each of
the AC/SO would appoint 5 people to the<br>
<dd>>
Separation Review.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> 2.
Alternatively: Use the ICG community inclusion and<br>
<dd>>
proportions to include the broader community as this<br>
<dd>> will
affect the entire community.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Unfortunately I have another commitment during tomorrow's
meeting so will miss the middle hour, but I do think this is
something that the group needs to figure out at some point in the near
future.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> avri<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> o<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> ---<br>
<dd>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.<br>
<dd>> <a href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">http://www.avast.com</a><br><br>
<br>
<dd>---<br>
<dd>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.<br>
<dd><a href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank">http://www.avast.com</a><br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
</dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dl><br><br>
<br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd><font face="verdana">NOTICE:</font> This email may contain
information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and
is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the
intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this
email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the
sender and delete this message immediately.<br><br>
<br>
<hr>
<pre>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</dd></dd></dd></pre>
</dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dl><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dd></dl></blockquote></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></div>