sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 8 May 2015 21:32, "Milton L Mueller" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joly
MacFie
> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 3:19 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: ncsg-discuss
>
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Ominous update on the IANA transition
>
>
> The numbers people also want a separable, contractual relationship. Tell
me why names is different.
>
SO:

I believe you know the major difference between numbers and names which is
the policy source; ICANN is the policy source for names while it is not for
numbers. One may argue that it will be in the interest of names(especially
the Gs) that ICANN continue to stand.
For numbers and protocol it will make a lot of sense to move it's database
from ICANN (when required) because it's policy development process is
independent of ICANN. Same cannot be said for names(excluding ccTLD) and
maybe that is why some don't see much sense in the proposed contractual
arrangements for names.

I guess it's all a matter of maintaining the tradition of IANA movability
and that is what the CWG has attempted (just that the community is now
feeling the cost of movability). Whether it's worth it or a better
arrangement is for the community to determine during the current PC

Regards