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

[Roger Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Brian said:
>
> "(This of course shows why the PTI is a pointless idea, but that isn't our
> discussion here.)"
>
> [BA] +1 to that!
>
> Unless there is an intent to institute fees, PTI would appear to be a
> subsidiary with no revenue and all costs.  Those costs would probably be
> higher than the present arrangement, due to the fees required to form the
> subsidiary, as well as the costs of operating the subsidiary (e.g.
> additional accounting, legal, personnel, etc. expenses) So given that PTI is
> going to cost 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.

I don't see PTI as a pointless idea, what I see as a pointless idea is
to have it
as a subsidiary of ICANN. If we're going to go down that road, why not go all
the way and make it a separate entity that stands on it's own - ICANN's
role would be to fund it for now. At some later stage other could fund it.

...  on the other hand, done right it would separate the different roles ICANN
have in this world, make it clearer that IANA is just a function that ICANN
host. However, there are other and better ways to do that to.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
[e-mail]          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | [e-mail]