Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

[Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]>]

On 11 May 2015, at 22:26, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I think it's simple enough. If the proposed PTI is a wholly owned
> subsidiary of ICANN, the overarching IETF agreement still needs to be
> with ICANN. Obviously operational additions such as the SOW and SLA
> could be with the subsidiary.

I am not there.

Looking at this from a perspective from separation of _policy_ and _implementation_ functions on could argue that the names community has chosen to make a clear separation of ICANN as the _policy_ body and the PTI as the _implementation_ body.

To me there is some logic for the IETF (as a _policy_ body) to contract with the PTI.

Obviously, there still will need to be coordination between the _policy_ bodies but that coordination needs to be there regardless of what the _implementation_ bodies are (yes that is plural, it reflects the current situation of having multiple organizations implementing parts of IANA).

I think it makes much more sense to have an SLA with the _implementation_ body (PTI) without another organization in the middle. There is an esthetic to that setup that I think bring transparency.

But I guess it depends a bit about what type of 'overarching IETF agreement' you are talking about, the cooperation with ICANN is not only about the IANA SLA.



—Olaf




- - -
Olaf Kolkman
Chief Internet Technology Officer
Internet Society
[e-mail]  www.internetsociety.org
LinkedIn: OlafKolkman, Twitter: @Kolkman
- - -