[discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Jun 19 22:31:54 UTC 2014
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Jun 2014 20:38, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> What I think is critical is that it remain a contract for the function
> that can be reviewed and given to another if necessary, for some
> definition of necessary.
Not necessarily a contract but a mechanism that allow for recovery should
incase ICANN goes beyond developed processes. Taking away and giving to
someone else usually may not solve the problem, but temporarily taking
charge while addressing the problem should be more appropriate.
> For now, of course i agree it needs to stay with ICANN,
For all it's worth, I think it's good progress reading the section above
from you. ;)
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss