[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract

[Burr, Becky]

+1

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

From: Maarten Botterman GNKS <maarten at gnksconsult.com<mailto:maarten at gnksconsult.com>>
Date: Monday, October 27, 2014 at 1:10 PM
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract

I’m with Avri on this. Never heard anyone being unhappy about the IANA practical work (“IANA functions”) as such, I think the world sees that that works, and an old saying in IT is “don’t fix it if it isn’t broken”. It works. Let’s keep the focus on where it is to be, effectively: on the oversight function organization. A challenge big enough to keep us busy without also considering a different organization of the functions at the same time – in particular when there is no apparent need for that.

Or did I miss something?



From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: maandag 27 oktober 2014 3:20
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] CWG RFP 2C - Draft Triage of IANA Functions Contract


On 27-Oct-14 00:31, Milton L Mueller wrote:

C.2.4. Assumes that all of the IANA functions are in the same entity. This assumption is not warranted at the present time.


Except that the assumption of this exercise is to change as few things as possible and an assumption that they can or even should be moved to seperate entities is not warranted.  The solition does not need to match the structure of the operational communities doing the recommendations.

Without an anaylisis of the effect of seperation, I think it unwise to assume they can or should be split.

I therefore would rather assume that the unity of IANA should be preserved until such time as it is proved that sperating them is the better solution.  And until it is proven that sperating them invovles no risk.  Even the IETF which is assuming it can pull out of IANA at any time has not done a complete analysis of the risks of doing so. Until we are sure that it does not pose a risk to the Internet, we ought to be careful about dumping this requirement.

avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141027/6c858f0e/attachment.html>