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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

On 5/11/15 10:34 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:42:17PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> to retain a direct relationship with ICANN, and NOT the PTI[4].  The IAB
>> could do the same, but then it seems to me that the value of the PTI
>> itself is diminished.
> Why?  The names community presumably wants this because it offers some
> mechanism to them (in this case a way to break the policy from
> implementation, if need be).  It needn't have anything to do with us.

It does, of course.  At the very least the terms of RFC 2860 needs to be
considered as part of this. Beyond that, it seems like the vision here
is the correct one, that policy is separated from execution, but the
financing of it in particular bothers me (see my note to Milton).
>> indirect and shared costs as well.  What isn't in those costs is an
>> allocation across functions.  At the very least we should have that
>> information.
> But what if we can't get it?  The breakout that we got from ICANN, it
> seemed to me inside the CWG, was itself rather hard to get.
> Apparently ICANN doesn't account things this way.

If you don't ask, you don't get.  I have heard various people over the
years talk about this in rough terms.  Now the names proposal has at
least something.  The simple question to ask is this: how much of that
$6 million is used for protocol parameters?  It's not an unreasonable
question.

>
>>   * Under this new arrangement, does it make sense to continue the
>>     relationship with ICANN as it stood before or does it make sense to
>>     go directly to PTI?
>>   * If the arrangement is with PTI, should we seek a budgetary
>>     separation, and what would be the complexities of that?
> If you need ot answer question 2 in order to answer question 1, then
> it seems obbvious to me that if we want to get this done in a
> reasonable time frame the answer to 1 is "leave it alone".

At the moment I would tend to agree, but would still want to ask the
above question.   I'd also suggest that feedback be given that if the
PTI is intended to take on more than just names over time, some amount
of thought be given to how the concerns of long term stability of the
other functions should be addressed.

Eliot