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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 22/05/2015 03:33, John Curran wrote:
> On May 21, 2015, at 9:47 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> ...
>>  Without either of those two kinds of
>> information, I do have an opinion about impact and risks to the
>> IETF, and have expressed it before, I think in my first note on
>> the subject: this is too complex, it introduces new risks of
>> non-transparent behavior that may be accountable to small groups
>> but is not even as accountable to the broader community as
>> ICANN's operation of IANA is today, and therefore should not be
>> considered acceptable.  
> 
> John -
> 
> You do not consider IETF's MOU for IANA services sufficient to 
> mitigate the risks associated with the CWG proposal? It would 
> be very useful for this community to understand what risks you 
> believe are not addressed by the present RFC 2860 MOU...

I definitely can't speak for John, but empirically, if some new
structure under ICANN can continue the good technical service we
get today under that MoU (and the subsequent additional IETF/ICANN
agreements), we should be happy and the IANAPLAN consensus should
stand. How ICANN organizes and delegates the work isn't our business,
*except* that we need the excellent direct contact with the actual
IANA staff that we have today. I think that's what Stephen Farrell,
Bob Hinden and Avri Doria said too.

But for me at least it is an empirical question; details of
Californian corporation law are remarkably uninteresting.

John Klensin, I suspect, is concerned about the risk that the future
service would fail the empirical test as a result of the proposed
changes. That's clearly a valid concern.

    Brian