Re: [Ianaplan] [[e-mail]: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition]

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

On May 3, 2015, at 5:47 PM, John Curran <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> However, I’m not certain it is a fair expectation that in the midst of admittedly private 
> discussions between IETF/IAOC and ICANN, ICANN should have unilaterally and 
> publicly sent a letter of inquiry to NTIA (in fact, I can easily imagine circumstances 
> where that act would be deemed rather anti-social...)

[BA] The NTIA-ICANN contract has certainly introduced complexities into the relationship between ICANN and the communities, but in the years of dealing with this, RIRs, ICANN and IETF have weathered quite a few storms together.  The key has been open communications and a cooperative attitude - starting from "here is the situation, what do we do together to solve it?". 

So heavens no, I was not imagining anything unilateral, but rather open communications, multi-lateral brainstorming and transparency to the communities. Yes, there is the legal structure of the contract and government procurement rules and procedures but it is not rocket science. Also in my experience, people at NTIA are quite approachable outside of legally mandated quiet periods, are invested in the success of the transition effort, and understand many of the details of the contract and procurement like the back of their hand.  As Earl Weaver used to say, "Relax, kid. We do this every day."