Re: [Ianaplan] Fwd: For your Information: CWG-Stewardship Response for Chartering Organization Consideration and Approval

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 11:46:42AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> "The existing IANA functions department, administrative staff, and
> related resources, processes, data, and know-how will be legally
> transferred to PTI.[8]
> 
> [8] In the case of any existing ICANN contracts, MoUs or other
> arrangements that relate to the IANA functions, these could be
> assigned to and assumed by PTI, replaced by new arrangements at
> the PTI level or remain at ICANN with a subcontract to PTI."
> 
> That appears to be suggesting that the entirety of IANA, not just
> the naming functions, should be transferred to PTI. That seems
> to be beyond the claimed scope of the proposal.

I don't think it is a scope problem.  On my reading, the CWG's
proposal in effect has two parts:

    1.  The IANA functions MUST move from ICANN to some other
    organization.  This provides a separation of the
    naming-policy-community organization from the organization that
    delivers IANA.  The idea is that this is a necessary condition for
    the rest of the proposal.

    2.  The details of how the naming community wants to interact with
    the resulting IANA functions operator.

The limitation of scope is really over (2), and not (1).

At least, that's how I interepret the proposal.

Best regards,

A (as ever, speaking just for me)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]