[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Dear Chuck:

With respect to your point 2, below - 

>	IANA Functions … 

-	allow me to recall that in 1997-1998 there was no doubt at all in our minds (I was there) that ICANN was created to be the home of IANA. After all, at that time there wasn't much else.
In Europe, following consultation with relevant multistakeholders (as one would say today) the EU supported the integration of the IANA functions within ICANN.

Regards

Christopher

	
On 22 Dec 2014, at 20:49, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Here are my personal thoughts on the Board comments.
>  
> 1.       They seem to put an excessive emphasis on Work Stream 1  of the Accountability CCWG, which comes across to me like they are trying to narrow the focus of the IANA transition just like they did when they created the two work streams.
> 2.       On page 2 in the first paragraph under IANA Functions, they say, “..ICANN was created and purpose--‐built to be the permanent and robust home of the IANA functions.”  That may have been the purpose of the particular individuals who formed ICANN; I cannot speak to their motives.  But my understanding was that ICANN was created to fulfill the role discussed in the DoC White Paper of replacing the U.S. Government’s role in the overall coordination of DNS identifiers.  That role certainly includes the IANA functions, but the Board statement makes it sound like that was the main purpose and it goes on to add the words ‘permanent and robust home’.  I do not recall those words in the discussion that occurred at the four Internet Forum for the White Paper meetings that occurred in the summer of 1998 that preceded ICANN’s formation.
> 3.       I do agree with them that the transition to ICANN “is, in large part, what ICANN was designed to do”, although I don’t think that meant the IANA functions exclusively.
> 4.       They disagree with the formation of a separate contracting entity but they fail to address the fact that the possibility of separating the IANA functions from ICANN was one of the key accountability mechanisms that NTIA provided that impacted not just the IANA services but all of ICANN accountability.
>  
> That said, I appreciate the fact that the Board submitted these comments and I think we should take them into consideration as we review and evaluate all of the public comments.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 1:58 PM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Cc: Stephen D. Crocker
> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions
>  
> Folks,
>  
> The ICANN Board has just submitted the attached public comment.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Steve Crocker
> for the ICANN Board of Directors
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141222/e1f618aa/attachment-0001.html>