[Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:30:28PM +0100, Richard Hill wrote:
> 
> Yes.  But we differ on what "staying the same" means.
> 
> To me, it means that ICANN should not have unfettered control of the mark
> IANA and the domain name IANA.ORG.

So, that's the "different" meaning of "same"?  They have control of
those items now, and they got it as part of the arrangement that
created the NTIA agreement in the first place.  Stamping our foot
about moral authority (particularly when it's as dubious as this)
isn't a strong bargaining position.
 
> Exactly.  Trying to negotiate with ICANN if things do fall apart is going to
> be messy.  Anybody who has gone through a divorce, or has friends who have
> gone through divorces, should understand what I'm referring to.

As I've argued repeatedly, in case of separation of the various IANA
portions from one another, the cases boil down to two: either we have
a co-operative separation (in which case, there'll be a pointer
installed immediately to wherever the new registry is), or we have a
hostile situation (in which case, no amount of agreement in advance
will help, because everything will be contested and we'll have to act
much faster than any legal process will permit).  

If people are genuinely worried about this problem, then the right
thing to do is not to try to get control of "IANA".  As Alissa keeps
saying, we still can't split a mark three ways.  Therefore, if we are
really concerned about arranging for that, we should create a separate
mark and domain name now.  We should start using the new name instead
of "IANA" in the newly-minted "Protocol Parameter Registry
Considerations" section.  We should publish another document that
says, "IANA now renamed NEWREG for protocol parameters", thereby
telling everyone that they can read "NEWREG" for "IANA" in all old
documents wherever a parameter is called out.  And we can point the
"NEWREG" site to the IANA site (probably by judicious use of a DNAME),
thereby preserving operation exactly as it currently functions. 

Again, I think it is entirely premature and foolish to do that now.
It would send exactly the wrong message when it is obviously better
that the various functions stay together and in the incumbent
operator.  There is effectively zero risk right now that we're going
to exercise this sort of thing in the short term, so we have lots of
time to undertake such a strategy in the future should there appear to
be any chance at all that we might need it.

> Why do you assume that?  As Milton has pointed out, ICANN is bound to
> implement whatever the consenus is of the global multi-stakeholder
> community.  

I think Milton is wrong about that.  What incentive does ICANN have to
accept a term that it doesn't like if the NTIA says it should do it?
NTIA has already announced its intention to change things.  If the
terms of that change are not to ICANN's liking, then ICANN can do one
of three things: 1. roll over anyway, 2. hold out and see if NTIA
blinks, 3. open negotiations with NTIA on extension of the existing
agreement.  It seems to me that (1) is unlikely and (3) is not what we
want.  (2) is unappealing, so we should avoid creating situations that
could cause that when there's not a significant upside for us.  
 
> Why not keep it simple, and transfer the mark and the domain name IANA.ORG
> to the IETF Trust?

I don't believe that's simple at all.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]