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

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On May 18, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Milton L Mueller <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
MM: Yes - as long as you remember that PTI, while a legally separate entity, is also an affiliate of ICANN; i.e., it is indirectly under its control. Further, I don’t think most people on this list are committed to model 1, because from a simple efficiency standpoint PTI will include all the IANA functions. So Mental Model 1 and 2 could co-exist, as long as ICANN assigns its contract with IETF and NRO to PTI. What is not viable is to keep protocols and numbers out of PTI.

Milton -

   Your statement -

         “So Mental Model 1 and 2 could co-exist, as long as ICANN assigns its contract with IETF and NRO to PTI.”

   may be accurate but is quite different than -

         “So Mental Model 1 and 2 could co-exist, as long as ICANN has PTI perform the protocol and number registries work on ICANN’s behalf.”

  i.e. an internal subcontracting from ICANN to PRI versus agreement _assignment_ from
  ICANN to PTI.   A internal subcontracting arrangement is unlikely to be material for the IETF
  and the RIRs, whereas an agreement assignment is visible, has some significant implications,
  and would require consent of the parties.

FYI,
/John