On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Stephanie Perrin wrote:

> +1 looks good to me too, although I could quibble about the answer to 
> #4....that is not what it should mean, but you are in a much better position 
> to determine what it means in the context of these discussions.
> Thanks for all the work you folks!
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2015-02-23 21:34, Olévié Kouami wrote:
>> Hi !
>> Great job Milton !
>> +1
>> Cheers !
>> -Olevie-

I also want to add kudos for Milton.   These foundational changes
are very hard to think about, especially unintended consdquences.

A comment on point # 8 which i hope is helpful:


---snip---

       8. Could there be unforeseen impacts relative to
          selecting a new operator for the IANA functions vs the ICANN
          policy role (should ICANN determine that there will be another
          round of new gTLDs, how could it ensure that the new operator
          would accept this)?

          No, a new operator could be contractually bound to accept
          changes from ICANN that were the product of legitimate policy
          making processes.

I'm a bit uneasy about having the new operator determining
just what changes are "the product of legitimate policy 
making processes", and which changes are not legitimate.

Some IANA functions, such as SNMP Enterprise number assignments,
have nothing to do with DNS, so will there be a governing
board of the new IANA to "oversee" non-DNS areas?   Or will
Internet users be expected to go through ICANN processes to
settle grievances on non-DNS items?

In additon who is the contract with the new operator with
ICANN?  So in the end, it's the ICANN board who determines
if the performance of the IANA operator is doing "the right
things" and if not to sue the operator, but in what court?

In the end, how is this "independent" from ICANN compared to
just being another department within ICANN?

-ron