[DT-F] URGENT: Several questions for DT-F

[Milton L Mueller]

Suzanne
I have to agree with David here and disagree with you. Basically it comes down to this part, where I think you commit a fallacy:

> analysis.) I have a strong opinion that the current system does work
> quite well, from multiple perspectives, and that for now, we should
> limit ourselves as much as we can to changes that will assure the
> system is no weaker post-transition than it is today.

People keep saying that they think the current system works well and keep forgetting that the current system goes away. 
The current system includes a cooperative agreement with Verisign that puts the USG in control of RZ content and thus _must_ end, and also includes an NTIA which not only authorizes RZ changes but holds contractual power over ICANN to perform the IANA functions. That will go away. 

So that idea that post-Verisign CA, post NTIA authorization, and post-NTIA contracting for the IANA functions, we have "the same" system seems obviously out of place and not helpful to me. Am I missing something? 

We are talking about a new arrangement. Further, as David points out, the current system doesn't really have 2-party authorization and even now can actually result in arbitrary changes to the RZ, and without the CA, that seems more serious to me that now, when Verisign is under CA

So I think we _should_ recommend some kind of a two-party arrangement. In response to this concern:
 
> I don't like to constrain future decisions unnecessarily

I think we can make that recommendation at the principle level in a way that is not so constraining.