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

[Milton L Mueller <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> Yes.  See the response I just sent to Olaf, but it seems to me that a "PTI" as a
> subcontracting arrangement to (more or less) an internal department is
> inconsistent with the (apparent) CWG of separation and independence and,

Wrong. This has been explained repeatedly; PTI provides separation, a limited amount of independence and mirrors the relationship numbers and protocols already have. Complete independence would be preferable but is not politically feasible. 

> as you have pointed out a separately-managed and accountable PTI that
> operates as a mostly-independent affiliate or subsidary of ICANN would not
> be plausible without IETF and address community consent and that there
> are reasons why it might not be in the interest of those bodies to provide
> that consent.

Except that you have not provided any plausible reasons why they shouldn't. The numbers contract doesn't exist yet and thus could easily specify either ICANN or PTI as its counterparty. The protocols MoU and SLA could be assigned to PTI without any change in its substance. 

> Assuming that consent will not be lightly or quickly given, the question for
> me becomes whether the independent-affiliate version of the PTI concept is
> valuable enough to the Names community to justify splitting up the IANA
> function.  And, if it is, whether the result is a sufficiently consistent and

As I've said before, there will be an independent-affiliate PTI or there won't be a transition in the next two years. Take your pick.