[governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4

[John Curran]

On Oct 24, 2011, at 4:55 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> 
>> It was well known at the time that both IAB and USG made
>> various claims regarding authority to direct the IANA;
>> the entire purpose of RFC 2860 was to delineate these
>> authorities, in particular with respect to identifiers 
>> with policy implications.
> 
> Has the US government in any way agreed to what is written
> in RFC 2860?

- If RFC 2860 impacted ICANN's ability to perform under the
  IANA Functions contract, then it is clear that the USG could
  have precluded ICANN from entering it with the IAB or used
  it as a basis to invalidate the award. 

- ICANN was not prevented from entering into the MOU with the
  IAB, and furthermore I believe that the IAB's decision to 
  work with ICANN for these technical tasks was viewed with 
  some degree of relief by everyone involved in ICANN's early
  formative period.

I know that the multiple interacting agreements can be somewhat 
confusing at first, but they really do exist. One pleasant side
effect of this fact is that all of the parties need to work with 
each other in order to build consensus before taking action.

FYI,
/John


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t