Also of note is the NTIAs own position on this:

From http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/iana-functions-and-related-root-zone-management-transition-questions-and-answ



Q. Who performs the related root zone management functions?



A. VeriSign performs the related root zone management functions pursuant to a cooperative agreement with NTIA.



Q. What impact does this announcement have on the cooperative agreement with Verisign?



A. Aspects of the IANA functions contract are inextricably intertwined with the VeriSign cooperative agreement (i.e., authoritative root zone file management), which would require that NTIA coordinate a related and parallel transition in these responsibilities.



From: Seun Ojedeji

Reply-To: Seun Ojedeji

Date: Tuesday 28 April 2015 14:03

To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"

Subject: Re: Public Comments on IANA proposal



On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:47 PM, David Post <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

At 10:38 AM 4/26/2015, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

[SNIP]  SO:

In the current configuration, PTI is not in the position to issue RFP, it's rather the parent (ICANN) that is in the position to issue RFP based on the recommendation of IRF team/possible escalation from CSC. The later which is not yet very clear. So PTI is basically entering the current shoes of ICANN and ICANN will be entering the shoes of NTIA post-transition



And this may be a dumb question, but just to clarify ... if ICANN enters the shoes of NTIA (the current contract "Administrator"), and PTI enters the shoes of ICANN (the current "IANA Functions Operator"), I assume there will also be someone stepping into the shoes of VeriSign (the "Maintainer") that will have a contract with both ICANN and PTI - is that corect?



Yes that is correct. However it is not clear how the VeriSign "shoe wearing" will look like as that particular aspect is out-of-scope for the CWG;  NTIA indicated there is/will be another process to address that (its not clear what that process will look like). The CWG proposal made it clear that whenever that shoe changing needs to be done, it should be determined by the multistakeholder community. Maintaining the current separation between the maintainer and operator was proposed. The relationship between the admin and the maintainer post transition is what is yet to be determined.



Secondly i hope by ICANN you know it does not mean ICANN staff/board alone. It meant the entire community including ICANN staff/board



Cheers!

PS: Member of the CWG-stewardship but speaking on my personal capacity



David











*******************************

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%A0%A0>

music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0> publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com

*******************************







--

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,

Federal University Oye-Ekiti

web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng

Mobile: +2348035233535

alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>



The key to understanding is humility - my view !