<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:55 PM, DAVID JOHNSON <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davidr.johnson@verizon.net" target="_blank">davidr.johnson@verizon.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">responses below:<div><br><div><div class=""><div>On Apr 17, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:medium"><br>
If I understand you correctly, an independent oversight with enforcement capacity should make it irrelevant whether IANA functions are carried out by ICANN or another, separate body.</span></blockquote></div></div><br></div>
<div>I think some (including ICANN) want to keep iana functions inside of ICANN. I am saying that would be easier to achieve if independent oversight with enforcement capacity were in place.</div></div></blockquote><div>
<br>
</div><div>+1 and that oversight is what i think is required to be developed during this transitioning process.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div> And oversight of both iana and icann should be combined insofar as iana is a function internal to ICANN. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I almost +1'd this but on the second thought; i don't think combining the 2 functions (i.e categorising the ICANN policy part as a function and IANA as another function) would help provide a good backup mechanism incase there is need to do so in future. They should remain structurally and functionally separate (not institutional but departmental wise) and the oversight process for IANA should be multistakeholder based and immune in nature (especially from any possible ICANN leadership Veto). When there is a need to challenge its immunity, then it should come from the community.<br>
<br></div><div>Regards<br></div><div>-- <br></div></div>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">web: </span><a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Mobile: <a value="+2348035233535">+2348035233535</a></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><br></i><i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453" target="_blank"> </a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></span></i><br>
</blockquote></font><br>
</div></div>