[CWG-Stewardship] Several questions for DT-F

[Jaap Akkerhuis]

 Andrew Sullivan writes:

 > 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.

The are my thoughts as well.

 > 
 > > 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.

Indeed!

 > 
 > 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.
 > 

+1,

	jaap