[CWG-Stewardship] For your review - version V3.3

[David Conrad]

Milton,

> I think you are missing my point. I simply call attention to the fact that
> IANA is inside of and its staff are employees of an organization (ICANN) that
> is overwhelmingly driven by names community priorities and finances.

The fact that the IANA functions are performed by ICANN employees does not
imply that the names community, a subset of the ICANN community, controls
the operation of the IANA functions or drives its priorities.
 
> It is wildly inaccurate, and undermines the credibility of your comment, to
> suggest that IANA was ³controlled² by the protocols community simply because
> maintaining protocol registries accounts for a lot of the work.

I question your knowledge of how the IANA functions are actually
implemented, how the priorities of the staff who perform those functions are
set, and thus, the credibility of your assertions of who controls or
operates IANA.

In terms of staff resources committed and activities undertaken by IANA
staff, the protocol parameter community was (and presumably still is) more
"in control" than the other communities of what IANA staff does. More staff
are required to perform that function than the others, and the protocol
parameter function is the only function that has Service Level Agreements
that defines what IANA staff must do. The budget for the IANA functions is
not set based upon who is paying for those functions, nor are the activities
undertaken determined by a particular community.

> The protocols community stopped participating in ICANN as a stakeholder more
> than a decade ago, when the PSO was ended;

In my mind, the fact that that the PSO went away does not mean the IETF and
the protocol parameter community ceased being an ICANN stakeholder.

> It¹s only Œcontrol¹ over IANA is an MoU of unclear legal status which gives it
> the right to walk away from it and find another registry should it want to.
> That gives IETF a lot of control over who it uses for IANA, but very little
> control over the IANA that resides inside ICANN.

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how ICANN provides the
IANA functions.

IANA staff must meet the demands of _all_ the communities they serve.  No
one of those communities "controls" the operation of IANA, nor does that
community "operate" IANA. The mechanisms by which the performance of the
IANA functions is "controlled"  is not based on who pays or who votes on the
ICANN board. That is simply not how ICANN has implemented the IANA
functions. It is controlled primarily by the agreements, e.g., RFC 2860
(despite your attempts to minimize it), the ASO-MOU, the IANA Functions
contract, etc., ICANN has entered into to perform those functions. One (1)
of those agreements will be going away with the transition ‹ this fact does
not invalidate the other agreements or the requirements on ICANN they
impose.

Regards,
-drc



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150421/07e659b0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150421/07e659b0/smime.p7s>