[CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 02/12/2014 16:55, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> If we have a contracted IANA that is separable from ICANN,
> periodically renewed, and if the MRT is authorized to make the kind
> of mission creep about which Malcolm is justifiably concerned the
> basis for non-renewal, then I think our transition plan will allay
> most if not all of the need for Track 1 changes.

I agree, as you say, *provided* that the PRT is indeed authorised to
make that kind of mission creep the basis for non-renewal.

Is it this group's intention that the PRT be so authorised?

> On the other hand if we have a non-contracted IANA, imperfectly
> separable or not separable, or one not regularly or periodically
> renewed, then virtually all of what Malcom talks about must go into
> Track 1, as far as I am concerned.

And surely the recommendations from Track 1, being by definition things
that must be addressed as part of NTIA transition rather than by ICANN
afterwards, must somehow make their way into the transition proposal
presented to the NTIA.

How is that to be achieved, if not by this group making the linkage?


-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA