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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

On 5/19/15 4:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*Eliot Lear [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
> I'm not sure I parsed you entirely correctly here, but the concern I
> was raising was this: the ICANN fee and the naming gold rush have
> cross-subsidized the other functions, most notably protocol
> parameters.  If names pulls out of the PTI, what incentives and
> mechanisms would remain in place to continue to fund the other
> functions at the same service levels?  That simply was not a concern
> before.  It is (at least to me) now.  I don't think it is
> insurmountable, especially over a longer term, but perhaps some
> groundwork may need to be laid within the naming context now, even if
> the IETF or RIRs do not choose to go directly to the PTI.
>
>  
>
> And yes, it is true that the IETF could always have terminated the
> arrangement, and then we would have had a funding problem of our
> making.  But that would have been the IETF's decision, not the naming
> community's.  This situation is different.
>
>  
>
> MM: Eliot, let me rephrase your concern this way. Tell me if you think
> it is fair and then we will have a clearer basis for discussion.
>
>  
>
> You and Alissa are saying that you want the protocols IANA functions
> to remain outside of PTI and in ICANN because that way, the names
> community will have no choice as to whether it can withdraw from the
> arrangement, whereas IETF can decide whether to withdraw at any time.
>
>  
>
> Correct?
>
>
>

I would state it differently: I am all for the names community to have
choices, but let's agree that there are ramifications for the other
communities, and those ramifications should be addressed and not swept
under the rug.

Eliot