[CWG-Stewardship] Initial Discussion Draft on Transition Models

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> The IETF, however, is in a different boat, as it doesn't think it needs such an
> agreement, so that is a cost of some forms of the legal separation that are

Really? It already has such an agreement, so it must think it needs one. But if it doesn't want to continue using the ICANN-based IANA after legal separation, it is free to go under its current arrangement. No big deal, eh?

The only change would be that its IANA has a slightly different corporate form. Really I can't understand why the IETF would not want to recognize this adjustment and I frankly don't think it would refuse. But here's the bottom line: there is no way the IETF can reasonably demand that the entire names community abstain from choosing its optimal solution because such a solution would create what is, after all, a very minor inconvenience for IETF. It is almost as if you are saying, "we currently have a nice arrangement whereby we can detach from IANA if it doesn't perform, but if you names guys try to create the same arrangement for yourselves, we will object. Doesn't seem reasonable, so I am having a hard time believing that you would actually be saying that.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding.