Hello Milton,

when I served on the ICANN Board, this was already under discussion. I agree with you that the question could be re-formulated as "why they think they should have a monopoly on it".

Jean-Jacques.










----- Mail original -----
De: "Milton L Mueller" <[log in to unmask]>
À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Envoyé: Lundi 11 Mai 2015 17:25:14
Objet: RE: [NCSG-Discuss] [Poll] Reminder topics of interest for the ICANN Board-NCSG session in Buenos Aires

I don't think that is the question we need to ask. We already know, from ICANN's public and private behavior, that they consider it VERY crucial that the IANA functions remain under their control. What we need to ask them is why they think the should have a monopoly on it - why the community should not be able to periodically review their performance and seek bids from alternate providers. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [Poll] Reminder topics of interest for the ICANN
> Board-NCSG session in Buenos Aires
> 
> Hello Rafik,
> 
> another suggestion: "From the point of view of the ICANN Board, how crucial
> is it that the IANA function (whatever it may be called, PTI or otherwise)
> remain in the remit of ICANN?"
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Rafik Dammak" <[log in to unmask]>
> À: [log in to unmask]
> Envoyé: Lundi 11 Mai 2015 13:26:28
> Objet: Fwd: [Poll] Reminder topics of interest for the ICANN Board-NCSG
> session in Buenos Aires
> 
> 
> forwarding a suggestion from Joy.
> 
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Joy Liddicoat < [log in to unmask] >
> Date: 2015-05-10 18:11 GMT+09:00
> Subject: RE: [Poll] Reminder topics of interest for the ICANN Board-NCSG
> session in Buenos Aires
> To: Rafik Dammak < [log in to unmask] >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rafik:
> 
> A possible topics: beyond new gTLDs: what next for ICANN naming policy?
> 
> 
> 
> Joy
> 
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto: [log in to unmask] ] On Behalf
> Of Rafik Dammak
> Sent: Friday, 8 May 2015 1:08 a.m.
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [Poll] Reminder topics of interest for the ICANN Board-NCSG session
> in Buenos Aires
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please suggest 2 or 3 topics we should discuss with ICANN board during our
> joint-session in ICANN meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rafik Dammak < [log in to unmask] >
> Date: 2015-04-27 20:10 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [Poll] topics of interest for the ICANN Board-NCSG session in Buenos
> Aires
> To: " [log in to unmask] " < [log in to unmask] >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlier that usual, we should find out the topics we would like to discuss
> with ICANN board in Buenos Aires meeting. we will try first to get several
> suggestions, then later we can narrow them to 3 topics for example. we have
> deadline for 15th May.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this will allow more time for us and the board itself to prepare for the
> session. The ICANN board chair sent also a letter with suggestion for new
> format for that session, but also for a Board - Stakeholders Groups plenary
> session with agreed topics. please find more details in the attached
> document. I do think that is good step to improve the dialogue between the
> community and the board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so feel free to propose topics and please add 1 or 2 lines to explain what
> you think we should discuss on those issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rafik