[Internal-cg] thoughts on where we are with the transition

Jari Arkko jari.arkko at piuha.net
Thu Sep 11 14:06:47 UTC 2014

> In my view, the concept of "oversight mechanism" could legitimately include new institutional arrangements that move the IANA function out of ICANN. However, my main point is not to advocate that position in this context, it is simply to make it clear that the responses to the RFP should be open to such alternatives - we should not foreclose any possible responses.

Ok. I think I agree with that.

> Thus, when you say "the operator will not change" you are foreclosing options. You can legitimately say, "in Jari Arkko's opinion, the current operator _should_ not change," but people on the ICG should not be telling the rest of the communities what "will not change" or what they cannot propose. 

Fair enough. I can see if I can edit my blog to make this clearer.

> I would say that as long as you believe that there should be a contracting authority capable of removing the IANA functions from ICANN to someone else, then we have no serious disagreement.

I do.

> What you may not fully understand is the extent to which giving the names community that capability requires some pretty significant organizational or institutional changes. 

Point taken. Thanks for the explanation.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140911/49995c2b/signature.asc>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list