Re: [bc-gnso] NetChoice comment on IANA

[Mike Roberts <mmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve -

I think this is a misinterpretation of the ICANN 
letter.  What I read says to replace the contract 
with a cooperative agreement.
This is a good idea and the BC should support. 
It is entirely consistent with regular reviews, 
ATRT, etc.
The "evil" procurement style contract was foisted 
on a very unwilling ICANN CEO and Board in late 
98 by DOD/NTIA lawyers covering their backs.  As 
ICANN says, it makes no sense.  This is not a 
procurement situation, it is basically a public 
service/public trust effort, which a cooperative 
agreement is designed to support.
- Mike




At 1:33 PM +0000 4/1/11, Steve DelBianco wrote:
> Just sharing the NetChoice comment on IANA (attached).
>
> We took a different tack than ETNO, because we 
> are concerned about ICANN's 'commitment' to the 
> Affirmation of Commitments.
> Before responding to specific questions in the 
> RfC, we address the comment filed by ICANN on 
> March 25, arguing to remove Commerce Department 
> review of IANA function performance.  For 
> reasons explained below, we believe that 
> Commerce must retain regular IANA contract 
> reviews in order to hold ICANN to its 
> Affirmation of Commitments.
> ?
>
> --
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.202.420.7482
>
>
> Content-Type: application/x-msword; name="NetChoice on IANA Contract.pdf"
> Content-Description: NetChoice on IANA Contract.pdf
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="NetChoice on IANA Contract.pdf";
>         size=116715; creation-date="Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:35:18 GMT";
>         modification-date="Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:35:18 GMT"
> Content-ID: <a652597f-e692-4cfa-a36b-009716c26ae6>
>
> Attachment converted: HD 500:NetChoice on IANA 
> Contract.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0118ECC9)