Re: [ga] ICANN: already two consensuses: still three more needed

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> Please remain open to the idea that many of the functions currently under
> the ICANN/IANA rubrics should be split off and handed to other groups,
> either new or existing.  Too many different functions under one roof
> requires too great a combination of skill sets, and also creates a real
> monster if it gets out of control.

There are several reasons why the IANA contract should be transferred to a 
distinct and separate entity with no overlapping management or employees.

  - Having IANA and ICANN as separate bodies would make it clear who is 
    deciding any particular question and who is taking any particular 
    action.

    Today, with the overlapping personnel, it is virtually impossible
    to distinguish the decisions and acts of IANA from those of ICANN.
    And, due to the apparently non-existant cost accounting practices of
    ICANN management, there is no way to apportion the actual costs to
    each body.

  - ICANN is in no financial position to be subdising the United States
    government.  Yet that is what ICANN is doing when it undertakes
    the IANA contract under a zero-dollar purchase order from the US 
    gov't.

  - The IANA function is essentially a clerical job with vanishingly
    few discretionary functions.  There is no need to throw IANA into
    the political malstrom that is ICANN.

		--karl--


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html