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

Eliot Lear <> Sat, 23 May 2015 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EEA1A90D7 for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 23:10:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IWpanTabwncF for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 23:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DF4B1A90C4 for <>; Fri, 22 May 2015 23:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2325; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1432361449; x=1433571049; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=HPqVdyX94TElTAIOxO4/OmC69aASZWV1d3jOsfK/IvY=; b=L9ajkht5be4vhOOOMXcUNqiQvFsv89gL8trTuHPYtLSQaF3rrt+G2NQc 3DSJcZOKiw0qngqDwh5xZk/8dj3+Ly082QvS1mgdtVdCLMwz9SLmv1rf1 8VnY/DMS03IjOcSDuHCj2RrqHPzupSJ21DI3CiImhrWI2muh2NODOjvFO U=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,480,1427760000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="152771165"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 23 May 2015 06:10:48 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4N6AjgR011804; Sat, 23 May 2015 06:10:46 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 08:10:46 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <>, "''" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <000001d091f7$266de3f0$7349abd0$@ch> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0exEVoOngDGjC7jM0rE7g9dbxQ0AwIe6l"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 06:10:52 -0000


You asked this question:

On 5/21/15 3:51 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> So I'd be interested in hearing from other folks [...] who think that the IETF ought do something directly involving the PTI (e.g. to re-open the MoU to change the partner involved or something.)

To me I think there are aspects of moving to the PTI model which are
quite attractive over time, because depending on how it is implemented,
the PTI can provide for better separation from the naming community and
associated politics.

But there are many many risks involved with adopting that approach in
haste.  Maybe there will be opportunities over time to take advantage of
the benefits, once we have some understanding as to how to manage the
drawbacks that have been discussed on this list (there may be more).  My
point is that we should not forever shut the door on the approach.

It's not clear to me that this involves reopening the MoU.  Most of the
hard lifting has to be done at ICANN and how they are organized, and how
funding works.  Some of that probably should be considered by them now,
because it may be harder to fix later, but as we have something that
works reasonably well now, and some of those issues are quite knotty,
and there is only so much time in the day, if the transition is to
happen, ICANN may need to address other more pressing concerns.