Yes, David, for me this is a big shortcoming and in the process we miss
the opportunity of creating a meaningful, effective international
oversight (notion that is totally foreign to the document, despite
references to the relevance of international jurisdiction for disputes
in very special cases).

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 04/23/2015 12:27 PM, David Post wrote:
> Milton/All
> 
> I'm sure this was talked about at length during the development of the
> proposal, but it does seem rather odd to me that "functional and legal
> separation" between the IANA naming functions and ICANN (which I agree
> is an important principle) has been implemented in this proposal by
> means of setting up a new corporation that is a wholly-owned subsidiary
> of ICANN's (with an ICANN-designated Board - sec III.A.i.b).  Can you
> say a few words as to why you think that provides for the necessary
> independence?  The PTI Board will be answerable to the ICANN Board,
> because ICANN is the only "member" of PTI - ??
> 
> David
> 
> 
> The At 10:58 AM 4/23/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Dear NCSG-ers:
>>  
>> The domain names part of the IANA transition is finally being formed.
>> A draft proposal was released yesterday and it is open for public
>> comment.
>>  
>> In my view, this is a big win for accountability. By legally
>> separating the IANA functions operator from ICANN, it will be easier
>> to hold ICANN’s board and staff accountable for the policy making
>> process, and easier to hold the post-transition IANA accountable for
>> its performance of the IANA functions. Lines of responsibility will be
>> more direct, and policy more clearly separated from implementation. 
>>  
>> The proposal also promotes accountability by creating a periodic
>> review process that could allow the names community to “fire” the
>> existing IANA if there was great dissatisfaction with its performance.
>> This enhances the accountability sought by the numbers and protocols
>> communities as well as creating separability for the names community
>> for the first time.
>>  
>> The legal affiliate structure seems to have found the middle ground in
>> the debate over ICANN’s role in the IANA functions. Although IANA will
>> still be a subsidiary of ICANN, Inc., thus defusing any concerns about
>> creating new organizations, it will have a separate board and a
>> clearer line of demarcation between the politics of ICANN the policy
>> maker and the technical coordination functions provided by the IANA
>> functions operator.
>>  
>> You can read the (very long) proposal here:
>>  
>> https ://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en
>> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en>
>>  
>> You can comment on it here:
>> * 
>> *
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
>>
>>  
>>  
> 
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n    
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. 
> http://www.davidpost.com       <http://www.davidpost.com       />
> *******************************