[CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:01:05PM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> Can anyone provide either a general answer or specific scenarios where the
> two-party solution is better.

I cannot think of a reason why this should be enshrined.  I can think
if an excellent reason not to change that _now_, however: the
relationship is there at the moment, and it's better to change as
little as possible as a matter of prudence.  See below.

> 1.c.1 Says that we need to consider increasing robustness WITHIN IANA prior
> to the CWG proposal being submitted.
> 
> 1.c.2 Says we need to consider robustness everywhere (including within IANA)
> post transition.
> 
> I am not aware of the justification for 1.c.1 other than it was sort of
> implied by the transfer of tasks from DT-D. But since NTIA did not refuse
> authorizations and there are no known problems, it is not clear that this is
> an urgent matter.
> 
> Moreover I find it highly unlikely that a proper job of this could be done
> prior to transition if it occurs in 2015 or early 2016.
> 
> Do we want to keep it?

Unless there is an operational definition of "increase robustness"
(i.e. a proposal for how robustness is increased, and one that
specifies the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowing what
that increase is and to what extent it has happened), I think 1.c.1 is
actively harmful.  It continues to indulge the myth that NTIA is doing
something that the IANA names community can't or won't do.

If someone has an operationalized proposal, and can show that it is
important, that's a different matter (though it raises the question of
whether it's a good idea to undertake the transition when such
improvements need to be made).  Otherwise, the text increases the odds
that we'll get a needlessly destabilizing change to the IANA
arrangements at exactly the moment where we want to keep everything as
stable as possible.  After all, if we change IANA and take the NTIA
away at the same time, then if something goes wrong afterwards we
won't know whether it was the change to IANA or the loss of the NTIA
that made the difference.  Mill's methods teach us to change one thing
at a time if we want to understand cause, and I can think of no better
time than now to invoke that principle.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com