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

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On May 12, 2015, at 1:38 PM, Roger Jørgensen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ...
> I don't see PTI as a pointless idea, what I see as a pointless idea is
> to have it
> as a subsidiary of ICANN. If we're going to go down that road, why not go all
> the way and make it a separate entity that stands on it's own - ICANN's
> role would be to fund it for now. At some later stage other could fund it.
> 
> ...  on the other hand, done right it would separate the different roles ICANN
> have in this world, make it clearer that IANA is just a function that ICANN
> host. However, there are other and better ways to do that to.

Indeed - the more obvious approach would have been to move "the structure representing 
the DNS community" external to ICANN (and then have that contract with ICANN for IANA 
naming services), but as noted by Milton, such an approach quickly raises concerns about
risk of capture and stability of the resulting entities.  

It should be noted that there is likely some benefit received from Post-Transition-IANA (PTI)
approach, in that it helps clarify roles and processes which are presently commingled in manner 
which interferes with assessment of accountability to the names community.  It also provides 
some benefit with respect to the identification of IANA costs.

The present challenge with PTI is that its mission, governance model, and legal structure 
are all still to be determined[1][2][3], and as such, it is unclear if one can responsibly contract 
with it for the delivery of IANA services.  Even though existing IANA staff and knowledge would 
transfer to the PTI and presumably function as it does today, the new entity will have its own 
governing Board (which could simply be an ICANN-designated or could be some other form
with various community representation involved) and mission, and either of these could have
impact on the delivery of IANA services.  For example, PTI’s governing Board could establish 
mechanisms that go beyond IANA policy implementation but appear otherwise reasonable 
(e.g. collection of suggestions for IANA policy improvement or quality assessment of new 
IANA policy as received); without knowing the governance structure or mission, it is not at
all apparent how we'd all collectively keep PTI focusing “on course” as the IANA operator
under such circumstances, aside from the obviously destabilizing option of terminating the
relation and contracting with another party for IANA operations.  

In addition, PTI has a funding dependency on ICANN and a likely dependency on the use 
of other ICANN cost centers for fulfillment of its mission.  This doesn’t create any risk if PTI 
is effectively governed by ICANN, but could prove ‘interesting’ if PTI has independent
governance structure and undertakes a direction and/or decisions which ICANN does not 
support.  If ICANN has an obligation to fulfill certain the contractual responsibilities for IANA 
services, then it is unlikely to that any misalignment would result in PTI’s inability to deliver 
on those duties, but it is less clear if that’s the case should the performance obligations be 
held only by PTI.

The IETF should consider all of the above, and the circumstances of its relationship with
ICANN via the existing MOU, and determine what is the best manner to serve the protocol
parameter community.  It might also be helpful to provide guidance on some of the open 
aspects of PTI, in order to shape it in a direction which best meets the community’s needs.

May you live in interesting times...
/John

[1] FAQ on External Legal Counsel Memorandum Proposed Post-Transition Structure - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/legal-counsel-memo-post-transition-structure-faq-08may15-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/legal-counsel-memo-post-transition-structure-faq-08may15-en.pdf>
[2]  "Summary of Legal Structure”, Sidley Austin LLP (CWG external counsel), 3 May 2015 - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003062.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003062.html>
[3] "PTI: Board Duties and Subsidiary Costs”, Sidley Austin LLP (CWG external counsel), 28 April 2015 - http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150505/8f61bbdd/PTI-0001.PDF <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150505/8f61bbdd/PTI-0001.PDF>

Disclaimer: my views alone.