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

[Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]>]

++1 to John on his entire write-up

Thanks

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 12 May 2015 15:08, "John Curran" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On May 12, 2015, at 1:38 PM, Roger Jørgensen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> ...
> 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.
>
>
> Indeed - the more obvious approach would have been to move "the structure
> representing
> the DNS community" external to ICANN (and then have that contract with
> ICANN for IANA
> naming services), but as noted by Milton, such an approach quickly raises
> concerns about
> risk of capture and stability of the resulting entities.
>
> It should be noted that there is likely some benefit received from
> Post-Transition-IANA (PTI)
> approach, in that it helps clarify roles and processes which are presently
> commingled in manner
> which interferes with assessment of accountability to the names
> community.  It also provides
> some benefit with respect to the identification of IANA costs.
>
> The present challenge with PTI is that its mission, governance model, and
> legal structure
> are all still to be determined[1][2][3], and as such, it is unclear if one
> can responsibly contract
> with it for the delivery of IANA services.  Even though existing IANA
> staff and knowledge would
> transfer to the PTI and presumably function as it does today, the new
> entity will have its own
> governing Board (which could simply be an ICANN-designated or could be
> some other form
> with various community representation involved) and mission, and either of
> these could have
> impact on the delivery of IANA services.  For example, PTI’s governing
> Board could establish
> mechanisms that go beyond IANA policy implementation but appear otherwise
> reasonable
> (e.g. collection of suggestions for IANA policy improvement or quality
> assessment of new
> IANA policy as received); without knowing the governance structure or
> mission, it is not at
> all apparent how we'd all collectively keep PTI focusing “on course” as
> the IANA operator
> under such circumstances, aside from the obviously destabilizing option of
> terminating the
> relation and contracting with another party for IANA operations.
>
> In addition, PTI has a funding dependency on ICANN and a likely dependency
> on the use
> of other ICANN cost centers for fulfillment of its mission.  This doesn’t
> create any risk if PTI
> is effectively governed by ICANN, but could prove ‘interesting’ if PTI has
> independent
> governance structure and undertakes a direction and/or decisions which
> ICANN does not
> support.  If ICANN has an obligation to fulfill certain the contractual
> responsibilities for IANA
> services, then it is unlikely to that any misalignment would result in
> PTI’s inability to deliver
> on those duties, but it is less clear if that’s the case should the
> performance obligations be
> held only by PTI.
>
> The IETF should consider all of the above, and the circumstances of its
> relationship with
> ICANN via the existing MOU, and determine what is the best manner to serve
> the protocol
> parameter community.  It might also be helpful to provide guidance on some
> of the open
> aspects of PTI, in order to shape it in a direction which best meets the
> community’s needs.
>
> May you live in interesting times...
> /John
>
> [1] FAQ on External Legal Counsel Memorandum Proposed Post-Transition
> Structure -
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/legal-counsel-memo-post-transition-structure-faq-08may15-en.pdf
> [2]  "Summary of Legal Structure”, Sidley Austin LLP (CWG external
> counsel), 3 May 2015 -
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003062.html
> [3] "PTI: Board Duties and Subsidiary Costs”, Sidley Austin LLP (CWG
> external counsel), 28 April 2015 -
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150505/8f61bbdd/PTI-0001.PDF
>
> Disclaimer: my views alone.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>