Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

On 7/15/14, 8:46 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> (However, I think much of the present IANA Stewardship discussion 
>> should be focused on how to keep the current IANA model running in 
>> a proposed post-NTIA world, since there's quite a bit of real-world
>> reliance on it today)
> +1, and as a related principle, the groups contributing the pieces of the final proposal to the current ICANN-convened "IANA stewardship transition proposal process" should be looking at all (and only) the changes necessary and sufficient for a robust, reliable post-NTIA IANA. Processes for improvement in the future are important and interesting, but also separate. 
>
> >From what I've heard here and in assorted other public meetings and discussion, this is the IAB's and IETF's intention in the ianaplan process. It seems like the right one, as long as the ability is preserved to evolve in the future as needed.
>

>From my perspective, yes.  There has been no credible alternative
proposed, and we have repeatedly all acknowledged that at least as far
as the protocol parameters are concerned, there have been no credible
complaints in the recent past.  Quite the opposite.  And what's more,
most of the discussion here has all been about how to go about keeping
things in a good state.  That is not to say there isn't room for
improvement in some areas, but the existing processes allow for that
improvement to take place.

Eliot