[IANAtransition] Redlined Scoping Document
drc at virtualized.org
Sat Apr 12 04:27:00 UTC 2014
On Apr 11, 2014, at 8:40 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> From: ianatransition-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ianatransition-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
>> " the IANA functions operator, which is required to be separated from ICANN by the NTIA contract, "
>> - I think the above could just end at "functions"
> Definitely not. It is a FACT that the current contract requires this.
Err, what? Could you point the the clause in the current contract that requires the IANA Functions operator to be separated from ICANN?
> The contract is going away. It is in scope to discuss how this separation will or will not be maintained once the contract goes away.
As Chip Sharp points out, there is a contractual requirement for IANA staff to not be involved in policy development (other than to respond to questions), but that is different than requiring the IANA Functions operator to be separated from ICANN.
> " The most recent renewal of ICANN's contract to perform the IANA functions included a diversity of opinions as to which organization(s) and under what arrangements the DNS, protocol parameter and IP number IANA functions should be performed. "
Personally, I think the wording here is a bit off. The renewal of ICANN's contract didn't include the diversity of opinion, the responses to the NOI/FNOI did. Given the contract combines all the functions, it's pretty obvious that NTIA's opinion ultimately was that they should be combined (not that their opinion mattered all that much given the IETF community and the RIR communities supported ICANN performing the protocol parameter and Internet number functions).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the ianatransition