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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, May 18, 2015 14:08 +0000 John Curran
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>>          "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.

Yes.  See the response I just sent to Olaf, but it seems to me
that a "PTI" as a subcontracting arrangement to (more or less)
an internal department is inconsistent with the (apparent) CWG
of separation and independence and, as you have pointed out a
separately-managed and accountable PTI that operates as a
mostly-independent affiliate or subsidary of ICANN would not be
plausible without IETF and address community consent and that
there are reasons why it might not be in the interest of those
bodies to provide that consent.

Assuming that consent will not be lightly or quickly given, the
question for me becomes whether the independent-affiliate
version of the PTI concept is valuable enough to the Names
community to justify splitting up the IANA function.  And, if it
is, whether the result is a sufficiently consistent and coherent
proposals to meet NTIA's transition proposal requirements.

best,
   john