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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Milton L Mueller <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > There is an underlying question: would the system be less stable if
> > protocols numbers, IP addresses, and domain names were managed
> > by three different structures? Or would it be more stable?
>
> That is the right question.
>
> Although not all comments are in yet, it looks like the concept of a
> legally separate PTI has sufficient support from the names community to
> become part of the plan (indeed, the most salient dissents are calling for
> more separation, not less). And it's also clear that numbers community is
> not objecting to this structure and does not see any risk in it, though
> they have made it clear that they want to continue to contract directly
> with ICANN.
>
>
​Your statement is not clear.  Are you saying that the numbers community is
not objecting to this structure for the names community and does not see
any risk in that community choosing that for its use?  Given that they have
made it clear they wish to contract directly with ICANN, this seems a
logical inference, but it is not clear that it is the one you have drawn.​


> 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.
>
>
​That is a very curious idea of secession.  The IETF community came to
consensus on a document that was completed prior to the PTI proposal being
made.  Having the IETF community continue to contract with ICANN is not
secession.​



> 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?
>
>
​This may be blunt, but it is also wrong.  The IETF has declared itself
satisfied with the work of  IANA and contracting with ICANN for the
relevant SLAs.  We are not adding anything to the transition by keeping
that set of arrangements.


> Or does it want the protocols functions to move with the names and number
> functions into PTI?
>
>
That's the real choice.
>
> How anyone can portray the first option as less destabilizing than the
> second, is beyond me. I view the second one as simpler. I hope no one at
> this point is pretending that the status quo ante is an option. It isn't.
>
>
​The *status quo ante* needs ​a time reference to be sensible.  *ante *the
decision of the NTIA to solicit proposals?  *ante* the publication of the
IANAPLAN and CRISP documents?  *ante* the decision of the names community
to propose PTI?

Ted




> > Having system concentrated creates a concentration of
> > power that increases risks for abuse.
>
> Remember that while all three functions might be provided by the same
> organization, each community would have its own distinct contract for those
> functions. In that respect there is a pretty powerful check/balance in
> place against abuse of concentrated power. Furthermore, extracting the
> supply of the IANA functions from an organization that is overwhelmingly
> dominated by the money and politics of names policy development is also a
> step in the direction of less concentration of power.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>