[CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.

[Alan Greenberg]

I have to disagree.

>Strawman Proposal 1
>
>4 Status of IANA Functions Operator
>
>a Division of ICANN.  The IANA Functions Operator will remain a 
>division of ICANN.
>
>b Enhanced Separability.  ICANN will maintain the current separation 
>between ICANN and IANA, and will make the IANA Functions Operator 
>more easily separable from ICANN, if separation becomes necessary at 
>some future time.

There was a "Review Committee" but clearly no other entity holding 
the contract. Strawman 1 did, nonsensically, posit that the internal 
committee could initiate an RFP. for a "new" operator, but this too 
confirmed the the "old" operator was ICANN.

The references to an oversight "mechanism" also alluded to something 
other than an external contract-holding entity.

Alan

At 30/11/2014 01:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>Frankly, I don't think an "internal to ICANN" proposal was ever put 
>on the table within the group prior to Frankfurt in any kind of 
>tangible, concrete fashion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141130/88ad94f5/attachment-0001.html>