Re: [Internetgovtech] an initial proposal wrt IANA developments

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 21/03/2014 06:54, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Hi Jari,

...
> The below text seems to suppose or imply that ICANN is changing its
> behavior to compensate for the lack of NTIA involvement.  That's just
> false.  Or it should be -- since NTIA has had no operational role for a long
> time, our multistakeholder processes are not affected by their departure.

I think this is, or should be, true. I will be delighted to see the
end of the NTIA contract, but in practical terms it's a no-op, except
for giving ICANN the flexibility to improve itself. So we should focus
on helping to improve ICANN, which initially means improving the
checks and balances provided by the multi-stakeholder model. (And of
course fending off attempts at direct governmental, UN or ITU
influence beyond their part in the multi-stakeholder model.)

    Brian