Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: For your Information: CWG-Stewardship Response for Chartering Organization Consideration and Approval

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,
On 20/06/2015 03:53, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:46:42AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> "The existing IANA functions department, administrative staff, and
>> related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally
>> transferred to PTI.[8]
>>
>> [8] In the case of any existing ICANN contracts, MoUs or other
>> arrangements that relate to the IANA functions, these could be
>> assigned to and assumed by PTI, replaced by new arrangements at
>> the PTI level or remain at ICANN with a subcontract to PTI."
>>
>> That appears to be suggesting that the entirety of IANA, not just
>> the naming functions, should be transferred to PTI. That seems
>> to be beyond the claimed scope of the proposal.
> 
> I don't think it is a scope problem.  On my reading, the CWG's
> proposal in effect has two parts:
> 
>     1.  The IANA functions MUST move from ICANN to some other
>     organization.  This provides a separation of the
>     naming-policy-community organization from the organization that
>     delivers IANA.  The idea is that this is a necessary condition for
>     the rest of the proposal.

Yes, and it doesn't in effect say "IANA naming functions MUST move". So that
seems to cover the entire scope, not just the names community's scope. And the
footnote [8] makes that very clear.

It may be a necessary condition for the rest of the proposal, but I find
it disingenuous that it doesn't explicity acknowledge that all three
communities would be impacted. It's almost as if the names community
thinks it's more important.

Rgds
   Brian

> 
>     2.  The details of how the naming community wants to interact with
>     the resulting IANA functions operator.
> 
> The limitation of scope is really over (2), and not (1).
> 
> At least, that's how I interepret the proposal.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A (as ever, speaking just for me)
>