[IANAtransition] Redlined Scoping Document
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Sun Apr 13 15:39:59 UTC 2014
From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org]
> Err, what? Could you point the the clause in the current contract that requires the IANA
> Functions operator to be separated from ICANN?
Chip Sharp just cited it, did you miss it? C.2.5
> 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.
OK, so you want to play semantic games. Look, everyone involved in this discussion has noted multiple times that ICANN currently has _functional_ separation, via C.2.5 and other requirements. Once that contractual requirement is gone, the issue is how is that separation maintained. Many believe structural separation will be required. This was a point made in our original paper back on March 3. Thanks for advancing the debate.
> 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.
Thanks for another pointless semantic nit. Obvious the meaning was that the renewal _process_ involved that discussion. Contracts aren't discussions.
More information about the ianatransition