[Internal-cg] statement Steve Crocker
jari.arkko at piuha.net
Tue Feb 17 03:08:04 UTC 2015
It is the right thing for the board to forward the proposal without modification, and I’m glad to see that (again) recognised. Steve and the board are of course doing the right thing. The transition plan is and must be a multistakeholder, community-driven process where the communities work out the right approach.
It has also been clear to me that the names proposal and the IANA-transition related accountability results are dependent on each other. We do not have a full proposal until we have both. (Although I do want to point out that the IETF proposal does not depend in any way on the ICANN accountability enhancements, our community had a clear opinion that we want to retain sufficient accountability mechanisms on our own side. We’ve had that basic capability already in the agreements for 15 years, so I think we are all good…)
I agree with taking all this information regarding board and CCWG into account in the timeline.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Internal-cg