| --- On Sat, 3/26/11, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
@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 <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
From: McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [kictanet] STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS ON IANA FUNCTIONS-my comments
To: "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com>
Cc: "KICTAnet KICTAnet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Date: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 5:04 PM
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> 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:
-- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
|