Joly

I think you're confused about the same thing I 
was confused about earlier.  There seems to be 
provision for ICANN, with community input, to 
"fire" IANA and find someone else to perform the 
functions that IANA will be performing - but 
there doesn't seem to be provision for the 
reverse (i.e. for IANA to find a different 
partner to perform the policy-making functions 
ICANN will be performing).  Not quite sure why 
that is, as in my view the ability to change partners should be symmetrical -
David

At 03:19 PM 5/8/2015, Joly MacFie wrote:

>On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Milton L Mueller 
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[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?
>​
>​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.
>
>Also, why is the IAB not a good candidate?
>
>j
>
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>WWWhatsup NYC - <http://wwwhatsup.com>http://wwwhatsup.com
>Â http://pinstand.com - <http://punkcast.com>http://punkcast.com
>Â VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - <http://isoc-ny.org>http://isoc-ny.org
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>-

*******************************
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
music 
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic  publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************