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

From: Richard Hill <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 12:09:42 +0200

I find that John makes some good points below and I look forward to reading a reply. 

Best Richard

Sent from Samsung Mobile.

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]> </div><div>Date:12/05/2015  21:08  (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: Milton L Mueller <[email-masked]>, Roger Jørgensen <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] </div><div>Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF </div><div>
</div>

--On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 11:56 +0000 Milton L Mueller
<[email-masked]> 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
> 
> Some of us pushed very hard to do that but ICANN and its
> supporters pushed back and others are afraid of the
> "instability" allegedly caused by a free-standing new entity.
> The separate legal affiliate was a middle ground. As a step in
> the right direction, it is an acceptable compromise imho. 

Milton,

I've having trouble understanding it as either a compromise or a
step in some right direction.    Unless a substantial endowment
were somehow irrevocably assigned to it, it would still be
dependent on ICANN for budget and it could not be spun off
without permission from the ICANN Board and, as long as ICANN
saw advantages to itself from being responsible for central
coordination and administration of the Internet's names,
numbers, and protocol spaces the Board would presumably not
agree (and arguably could not agree).  

Even the idea that PTI would clarify the financial relationships
is dubious if ICANN could set the indirect cost rate... at least
unless that the basis for that rate, including very specific
numbers, were made fully public and/or subject to auditors who
were not chosen by or accountable to ICANN.  It is not obvious
to make how such conditions could be met or how one could
enforce their continuation in a post-transition ICANN.

So, while I might be missing something, most of what I see in
the PTI arrangement is increased organizational complexity
(which almost always increases total costs) and the potential
for reduced practical accountability (since two groups of people
and entities would be responsible, not just one)).

As John Curran indirectly points out, how severe the actual risk
is depends on details that have still not been sorted out.  But
I believe that the issues above are fundamental.  For example,
as long as ICANN holds the purse strings, it would be
irresponsible of them to irrevocably let go of some or all
measures of control and that any "instability" arguments that
can be made today could be made at any point in the future to
support avoiding such irresponsibility.

So, am I missing something and, if so, what?

     john

_______________________________________________
Ianaplan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 14:35:24 -0700

On 5/13/2015 3:09 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
> it could not be spun off
> without permission from the ICANN Board and, 
...
> for reduced practical accountability

+1

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 11:28:14 +0200

For the record, the message below gives the impression that I wrote the
quoted bit.  That's not correct, the quoted bit was written by John Klensin
responding to a message from Milton Mueller.  My contribution to that string
was "I find that John makes some good points below and I look forward to
reading a reply". See:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01758.html 

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave
> Crocker
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 23:35
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
> 
> > the PTI arrangement is increased organizational complexity (which
> > almost always increases total costs) and the potential for reduced
> > practical accountability
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker