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

[Milton L Mueller <[e-mail]>]

someone (ICANN or the communities or both) something, it needs to provide some definite benefit to compensate.  However, from what I can see, there is none.

MM: A very short-sighted comment. One would think that recent events would have brought home to everyone paying attention the risks of conceiving of the IANA functions as a monopoly of ICANN bundled in with (and dwarfed by) the naming policy development organization. I suggest a quick review of RFC 7500.

Just as a general admonition, IETFers who think that everything about ICANN will be the same once the NTIA and the USG leave the scene are living in a dream world. So your apparent comfort with the status quo needs to be re-examined in the light of future changes – changes that are NOT hypothetical

Typically wholly owned subsidiaries of a non-profit are created in situations where the subsidiary is expected to generate a profit, not a loss.

MM: This observation is completely irrelevant. This is a nonprofit environment and the primary considerations are accountability not profit or loss.

  Since the subsidiary is wholly owned by ICANN, the financial results can be consolidated, but consistently money-losing entities have a way of garnering extra scrutiny from taxing authorities (and from the executives and board members of the parent company).

MM: ICANN is tax-exempt, and if it has a problem along those lines recently, it is the fact that its naming policy activities generate too much money, not its losses. IANA functions currently account for about 3.6% of its overall budget. In terms of transparency, efficiency and the rationality and accountability of the overall system, it is a very good thing for budgets to be separated out and clearer.