Hello, While it's fine to move this to appropriate list. It may be helpful to indicate that 3 lists are involved in this so it may be good to discuss the issue with the individual OCs. That said, I am certain the ship has sailed on this particular question in that ICG has completed its process (well almost) in producing a single proposal where each OCs have proposed a clear separation process post-transition and can indeed implement whenever required. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Nov 2015 19:39, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Thanks Andrew, James and Milton, > > I suggest moving this discussion to the appropriate list. > > Best regards, > > > León > > El 16/11/2015, a las 10:59 a.m., Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> > escribió: > > This issue (separate or integrated IANA functions operators) is really an > issue that CCWG has nothing to say about. It was already decided by the > three operational communities that each IFO would be separable, and > protocols and numbers already have clear ways of separating from ICANN, > whereas names has a very difficult and complicated process for doing so. > > CCWG touches on this issue ONLY insofar as the instructions of the > separation process must be enforceable somehow (for ONLY the names > community). > > *From:* [log in to unmask] [ > mailto:[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Padmini > *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2015 7:01 AM > *To:* BestBits; [log in to unmask]; Accountability Cross > Community; [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] Do we need a unified post-transition IANA? > > > Dear all, > > (Apologies for cross posting at the outset) > > At the Centre for Internet and Society, we found ourselves wondering why > there was a strong presumption in favour of unified IANA functions after > the transition, given that there was at one point of time significant > amounts of discourse on splitting these functions. Even as we all debate > over the extent of ICANN's coordinating functions over the different > functions, perhaps we could open our - minds to the idea of separating the > three functions - names, numbers, protocols - after the transition. > This idea has been detailed in the blog post below. The three main points > we make are : > > - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for technical specialisation > leading to greater efficiency of the IANA functions. > - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for more direct > accountability, and no concentration of power. > - Splitting of the IANA functions allows for ease of shifting of the > {names,number,protocol parameters} IANA functions operator without > affecting the legal structure of any of the other IANA function operators. > > > > > http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-need-a-unified-post-tranistion-iana > > We welcome comments on this. > > Warm Regards > Padmini > Centre for Internet and Society > Bangalore > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > [log in to unmask] > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > [log in to unmask] > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >