Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

On 11/3/14, 2:26 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 02:03:19PM -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> How does that sound to you in principle?
> My objection to moving the relevant bits to the IETF Trust has never
> been one of principle.  It's been one of practicality: I don't see any
> incentive whatsoever for ICANN to give up that property without
> getting something in return, and I can't think of anything I want to
> give up more than iana.org in case there's more than one operator. 

There are two arguments to be made.  First, and perhaps most
importantly, it's not theirs..  It's the community's, and this is true
on its face.  How can it be said that IANA.ORG is not part and parcel of
the IANA functions? Second we have stated a legitimate requirement for
continuity of service that the NTIA is in a position to make clear is a
requirement; that is part of security and stability of the IANA
functions service.  For ICANN to say "no" would discredit them, given
the first argument.  Nor should they say "no".  It would be bad for
everyone.

As I wrote, I am not wedded, nor was I ever wedded, to the IETF Trust
having to have a role here.  I was satisfied with any successor taking
the name, as you and Milton agreed.  My sole issue is continuity of
service in the face of transition, including backward compatibility.

Finally, I expect that when we publish this document, we are not done. 
Rather there will be discussions about how to meet the legitimate
requirements we have laid out, such that the other parties are
satisfied.  That may require changes to the resulting response.  That is
already built into the ICG's timeline.

Eliot