Re: [Ianaplan] it's more than that

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>While it is understandable that ICANN legal might be concerned about its
>freedom of action under the NTIA-ICANN contract,  there are more
>transparent ways for them to have handled that concern - and that is what I
>believe that much of the fuss is about.

Some of the fuss, but far from all of it. I agree this would not be
the first time that ICANN has suffered from bad legal advice.

Personally, I'm more concerned about two things.  One is that the
CWG's plan boils down to ICANN overseeing itself through a wholly
owned subsidiary.  I realize there are supposed to be all sorts of
conditions indented to make this less absurd, but it seems absurd to
me.

More of an issue is the situation described in this article by the
generally perceptive Kieren McCarthy two days ago.  It reports that
ICANN has told the RIRs that ICANN won't even discuss any plan unless
it says that ICANN runs IANA forever:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/01/icann_iana_latest/

If ICANN is really saying take it or leave it, I don't see that we
and the RIRs have any option but to leave it.  That would be a huge
hassle, but given ICANN's history, does anyone dare to give them
what is in effect a blank check?

R's,
John