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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> I agree with John. If PTI is a wholly owned subsidiary of ICANN, then I
> don't see how it provides any meaningful separation.

First, let me correct an error: there is no ownership of public benefit corps. If PTI is a public benefit corp. (PBC) it is an affiliate, not a "wholly owned subsidiary." If it is a PBC it can have an insider board or an "outsider" board. An insider board is appointed by and controlled by ICANN; an outsider board is not. If a PBC has an outsider board it can be quite independent. Indeed, the apologists for ICANN have lobbied very strongly against such a proposal for precisely that reason. The issue of PBC vs. LLC is still to be made; and the issue of insider vs outsider board is also not made. So there is a spectrum of separation and independence from ICANN. If your goal is a better proposal (rather than to obstruct a solution) I would interpret your comment to mean that you favor a more independent PTI, as do I. 

However, no matter where the names community locates itself on that spectrum, PTI is still "meaningfully" separated from ICANN. The assets and staff and operations management of PTI would have been moved out of ICANN corporate, 94% of which is names policy related, and into a separately run entity. The work flow process, as John Curran noted yesterday, would become explicit and that would be a meaningful change in terms of separating policy from implementation. By creating a separate affiliate, a contract and creating a periodic review process which has rebidding the contract possible, we also make it more feasible to fire PTI and use a different IANA functions provider. 

> I don't think that it addresses the number 1 priority issue identified by
> the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2005, namely the
> asymmetric role of the USA, because it seems that ICANN and PTI will
> be based in the US and subject to US law.

I understand that this is your real concern, so perhaps that explains why you are taking off-target pot shots at PTI. 
But let's confront the real issue, and not make the corporate structure of PTI a proxy. 

My answer to you is:
1) the number 1 concern of the WGIG (and it was 2004, not 2005) was NOT U.S. jurisdiction, but unilateral U.S. government control over the IANA contract. The stewardship transition does address that. 

2) There is surprisingly little support in the names community for moving ICANN or PTI out of U.S. jurisdiction. There would be fervent opposition to doing so from the U.S. Congress and many others. As you know, I am agnostic on that issue; I think PTI could be jurisdictionally domiciled anywhere especially if it is just an independent contractor of ICANN. But as a practical political matter, it probably won't be, at least not in the initial stages of this change.