<div dir="ltr">John,<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 4 September 2014 11:47, John Curran <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jcurran@istaff.org" target="_blank">jcurran@istaff.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On Sep 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> But: isn't the main debate the fact that there is a policy/operations separation for protocols and numbers, but not names?<br>
><br>
> And that the simplest, most elegant way to achieve that for names is to put the IANA functions operator in a new box?<br>
<br>
</div>Given that the IANA has been performing its tasks correctly, moving it will not<br>
meaningfully change the present situation or outcomes.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It changes the accountability environment for names, with no difference for the other customers. Nobody wants to change the present operational situation per se.</div>
<div>�</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
On the other hand, if the problem is that the DNS community does not have an<br>
independent voice with which to engage ICANN as a partner (rather than only<br>
having internal accountability mechanisms as deigned by the Board), that is a<br>
different situation and likely require something other than just moving the IANA<br>
to address.<br>
<div class=""><br>
> (compared with gTLDs and ccTLDs having to form non-ICANN policy bodies... a nightmare if ever there was one)<br><br>
</div>See above.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do you genuinely think it is easier to move the set of names stakeholders than it is to move the IANA functions operator, given their relative scale, diversity, operational consequences, etc?</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'd be interested in you teasing this out.</div><div><br></div><div>I'd also like to point out that there are many forms of "moving". An easy one is a management board for the IANA department that has to validate changes as in line with policy etc, but leaving it within ICANN legally and practically (finance, HR etc). �A slightly bigger departure is as a wholly owned subsidiary company of ICANN with an operating agreement. The most radical approach as outlined by Milton months ago is more complicated, but would also work.</div>
<div><br></div><div>To me, any of those is cleaner than saying: "Hey governments, registries, registrars, at large users - you have to move organisations now to do names policy. Yes, that's like ICANN the Second, but it's easier than hiving off a couple dozen people in a nice brightline solve... oh, wait..." :-)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>�</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thanks,<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">/John<br>
<br>
Disclaimer: my views alone.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>
Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.</i><br><br></div>
</div></div>