[CWG-Stewardship] Do we really need a Contracting Co.?

[Seun Ojedeji]

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 4 Dec 2014 21:08, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 04-Dec-14 12:19, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>
>> I believe that it was driven by the lack of trust in ICANN, and that
there may well be ways to ensure that ICANN does not violate the MS trust.
>
>
> As I have stated several times, my position has to do with the
accountability of the holder of the IANA contract, no matter who has it.
>
I believe  accountability of the operator is what we are all interested in.

>
I can think of NO better  mechanism to guarantee that ANY holder of such a
contract is accountable other than the threat of withdrawing the contract.
Just as the NTIA or  IETF can do.
>
Well each RIR are not threatened with withdraw of contract. Come to think
of it... those that should actually be insistence on contracting are those
that relate with the current operator at IANA record keeping only (i.e the
numbers, cctlds and  protocol). The gTLDs have a whole lot at stake with
the current operator and they should instead build the organisation to
ensure it has the mechanisms that makes it accountable to it's community.
While it may be fine to keep the right to move IANA, I think it's good we
all face the reality that at this stage it will require a great technical
mismanagement to justify moving IANA from the current operator and if the
operator knows this then I don't think it's more of a threat any longer.
-
>
  It is a clean simple mechanism and no one has suggested anything simpler,
cleaner or more workable. For me that is one of the absolute requirements
and has nothing to do with ICANN.
>
Perhaps a cleaner way is shelf the contract somewhere; maybe at IETF (ISOC)
then work with the ICANN accountability team to define IANA specific
measures that should be in place internally within specific timeline. This
will only require this CWG staying much longer to see those measures put in
place. A sign of commitment from the operator could also be identifying the
basic part of the accountability that needs to be implemented before
transition.

> Again I believe my SG is behind this view.
>
If I may ask, how is this determined?

Cheers!
> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141205/85911dce/attachment.html>