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

[Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Olaf Kolkman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 15 May 2015, at 18:54, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> Depending on how ICANN sub contracts the IANA services the *IANA Blackbox*
> could look in fact be the *PTI*, with the IANA department being a
> one-to-one mapping to the PTI. And the then looks like:
>
> Mental Model 1 - implementation
>
> IETF -> ICANN [-> PTI ]
> NRO  -> ICANN [—> PTI ]
> Names Community -> PTI
>
> Where PTI == the IANA department.
>
> The Names Community is organized within ICANN and there is a funding
> stream from ICANN to the PTI.
>
> The picture is a bit more complicated since the Names Community is part of
> 'ICANN' and the funding of the PTI comes through 'ICANN'.
>
> So here is my clarification question: Am I correct in my understanding
> that my mental model 1 aligns with where most people on this list are
> going,
>
For RIR and names, model 1 seem to be the case. However from my observation
of current IETF discussion, it seem there is a "but" in their preferred
version of model 1 as thus:

IETF -> ICANN [-> IANA Department ]

Where oversight(administrative) of IETF related function is not done by PTI

Regards

> —Olaf
>  ------------------------------
>  Olaf M. Kolkman
> On Personal Title.  Twitter: @Kolkman <https://twitter.com/kolkman>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: [phone]**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>[e-mail]
<[e-mail]>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !