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

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

From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[e-mail]]

I'm not sure I parsed you entirely correctly here, but the concern I was raising was this: the ICANN fee and the naming gold rush have cross-subsidized the other functions, most notably protocol parameters.  If names pulls out of the PTI, what incentives and mechanisms would remain in place to continue to fund the other functions at the same service levels?  That simply was not a concern before.  It is (at least to me) now.  I don't think it is insurmountable, especially over a longer term, but perhaps some groundwork may need to be laid within the naming context now, even if the IETF or RIRs do not choose to go directly to the PTI.

And yes, it is true that the IETF could always have terminated the arrangement, and then we would have had a funding problem of our making.  But that would have been the IETF's decision, not the naming community's.  This situation is different.

MM: Eliot, let me rephrase your concern this way. Tell me if you think it is fair and then we will have a clearer basis for discussion.

You and Alissa are saying that you want the protocols IANA functions to remain outside of PTI and in ICANN because that way, the names community will have no choice as to whether it can withdraw from the arrangement, whereas IETF can decide whether to withdraw at any time.

Correct?