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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 21:53 +0000 Milton L Mueller
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> This means that comments questioning "what problem PTI is
> trying to solve" or "whether we should move in the PTI
> direction" are quite misdirected. We are not discussing
> whether PTI will happen, but whether IETF will choose to
> secede from it. 
> 
> To put the question more bluntly: 
> 
> Does IETF want to add to the transition a new process of
> extracting itself from the current IANA department and leaving
> the protocols registry as a stand-alone service within ICANN? 
>...

Milton, it seems to me that the way you are characterizing the
situation brings us perilously close to a situation in which the
names community will block any transition in which the PTI,
defined however the names community decides to define it, is not
the main element.  My understanding of the charge from NTIA is
that all of the relevant communities need to reach consensus on
a single plan for their to be a transition.  From my point of
view, proposals/positions from the protocol and numbers
community were put on the table and both of those groups
concluded that their proposals were compatible.  Those proposals
also made minimal changes to the existing system and, at least
IMO, explained and justified the changes they did want to make.
Then the names community (or at least the CWG) comes along with
a proposal with big gaps, large changes, and little explanation
or rationale and they (or at least you) say "accept PTI or no
transition" and tell the IETF community what questions we are
allowed to ask and that, because PTI is a done deal, our only
option is to secede.

Speaking again for myself only, I don't see it that way.   What
I do see is a demonstration of a concern that a few of us have
had for some time -- the possibility that, freed of external
oversight, portions of the names community would make decisions
about what is in their best interest without much regard for
other needs or the opinions of other communities (except
possibly in the form of the names community's opinion of what
those communities should want and need) and then, because of the
way ICANN is structured, impose their view on everyone else.  

If that is where we are then, again from my point of view, we
are conclusively demonstrating that we are not ready for a
transition that removes external oversight (whether via NTIA or
otherwise) and that conclusion is largely independent of whether
the IETF and/or numbers community agree to whatever the PTI
model turns out to be.

I think that would be very sad.

   best,
     john