[discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?

[Barry Shein]

We agree. But...a contract with whom? Who is the counter-party?

And, more difficult, what are the default and breach terms and who, in
case of default or breach, does the contract potentially go to for
performance?

As I said earlier this was a problem with NTIA as the counter-party,
they were mostly shooting with blanks. Except inasmuch as the whole
weight of the US govt is generally dangerous to bluff. But that won't
be the case in this new regimen. Or at least not as currently
conceived (i.e., the US completely out of it and no other govt
involved either.)

On June 19, 2014 at 15:37 avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) wrote:
 > Hi,
 > 
 > On 19-Jun-14 14:43, Barry Shein wrote:
 > > 
 > > I believe that any suggestion that the IANA function should be
 > > transferred to any organization other than ICANN is largely a paper
 > > tiger.
 > > 
 > 
 > 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.
 > 
 > For now, of course i agree it needs to stay with ICANN, but there should
 > be periodic reviews and contract renewals if merited.  I think we can
 > even discuss a presumption of renewal based on good performance, for
 > some definition of good performance.
 > 
 > What I believe is a non-starter for many, is a contract for the function
 > in perpetuity.  But certainly the next 2 years at least should be ok -
 > that should be enough time to get a proper review process in place post
 > transition.
 > 
 > avri
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > discuss mailing list
 > discuss at 1net.org
 > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*