Hi,


On 08-May-15 15:19, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     If there is separability, then the moment IANA stops doing what it
>     is supposed to do one can fire the operator and find someone who
>     will conform to the contract and implement the community-based
>     policies.
>
>
> ​You mean ICANN? Or am I missing something?

the IANA Function Review group or another designated group of ACSO+
community (one of those still open issues) would be the ones running the
RFP and picking the new service provider.


> ​
> ​CW's point is that, if separate, what's to stop anyone with a billion
> dollars ​hijacking it for their own agenda?  Presumably the ICANN
> board is assumed to be harder to hijack because of established
> accountability checks and balances. Why duplicate all that?  Just asking.

Obviously money can do anything. Or so we are told.  Are you thinking
that someone with a billion dollars might be able to buy enough votes
among the SOAC to get control of the PTI Board.  Or of the IFR?  Beyond
the fact that there is nothing there worth a billion dollars, nothing
there that could not be reproduced with backup data, some talented folks
and some hardware, do you really think that the the people in the SOAC
can be bought?

What if Billion Dollars did get control of the PTI.  The CSC, or the SOs
could intitiate and IANA Function Review, and the review could take
action: from removing that board, to replacing IANA.

I do not see a reasonable scenario where this could be bought.

Perhaps in a environment without any transparency, those who believe in
conspiracy might be able to envision something.  But we are making ever
greater progress toward default transparency, I do not see how a buy-off
could happen.

>
> Also, why is the IAB not a good candidate?

The IAB is a fine group of talented people picked by a very random
IETF-participant Nomcom model that actually nominates IAB members for
ISOC Board of Trustee (BoT) approval. The problem with the IAB, however,
is that they and the IETF are supported by ISOC.  ISOC gets a good deal
of its income from a registry that is dependent on ICANN policy for much
of its income. Not that I believe for a second that either the ISOC BoT
or IAB might be motivated by money or that PRI would ever try, but just
the appearance of that dependency relatonship might be problematic.

avri

>
> j
>
>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com