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

[Gomes, Chuck]

That seems to be beside the point Christopher.  The one incidence resulted in better accountability.  I don't think any of us want to transfer the functions outside of ICANN.  We just want to make sure that we never have to.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Wilkinson [mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 4:05 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Seun Ojedeji; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions


On 22 Dec 2014, at 21:40, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> The option of separating IANA from ICANN provided important accountability. 

Dear Chuck:

I think that you overstate the case. Granted, there was at least one occasion when NTIA delayed the renewal of the contract in order to obtain a better offer from ICANN. OK.
But observing this at the time, albeit from afar, there was never an even remote expectation of separation.

In such an eventuality, the whole 1997 international negotiation over the creation of ICANN would have been re-opened. That which, no doubt, none of the parities, including NTIA, would have wished.

Regards

Christopher