--- On Sat, 3/26/11, McTim <[email protected]> wrote: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/ACF2EF.pdf @McTim, True, ICANN says more else the same thing; but think about it, maybe ICANN says what we ask it to say and they reflect our thoughts and aspirations. That is the nature of a multistakeholder, bottom up organisation that ICANN is. walu. nb: also refer to my original message and you will see that I never claimed exclusive rights to these comments. I simply digested the same for the local community. --- On Sat, 3/26/11, McTim <[email protected]> wrote: From: McTim <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-my comments To: "Walubengo J" <[email protected]> Cc: "KICTAnet KICTAnet" <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 5:04 PM On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J <[email protected]> wrote: Wambua, I wont make it for the meeting but plse register my comment on the above as follows: 1. No single government should have oversight powers over IANA functions(core operational functions of the Internet). That's what the original White Paper said...it's just 20 years later now. NB: IANA functions are administrative, not operational. 2. It is therefore best that the US government relinquishes oversight powers over the IANA function in a progressive manner i.e. by moving its relationship with ICANN over IANA function from the current "Contractual" agreement to a "Cooperation" agreement locally known as an MOA and eventually an non-legal agreement sometimes known as an MoU that's what ICANN says too: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/ACF2EF.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel