[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:51:52AM -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> First on Nomcom.  This model rest on a notion of subsidiarity acccording
> to operational community; if a nomcom were used it should be the nomcom
> of the operational community.  The idea of creating a new nomcom that
> was 3 operational communities wide scares me more than the creation of
> the Contracting Co. would

Well, yes, but in my response I was more or less suggesting that some
of the other operational communities might not want to join such a
board, and therefore there would really be only one operational
community to represent.  I agree that setting up a new nomcom "3
communities wide" would be a great way to arrange failure, but I was
assuming that the control over the new subsidiary doesn't like in
those other communities because, in effect, they have no direct
relationship with it.  But anyway, this detail seems to me to be one
that could be worked out depending on which way we wanted to go.

> while as strong as any internal model, would not be as strong as if the
> SLA were moved to the  Post Transition IANA (PTI).

But this is part of the fundamental issue.  What is basically being
suggested is that the other communities (numbers and protocol
parameters) need to open new negotiations for their arrangements with
an entirely new organization.  The IETF, at least, has been crystal
clear that it is happy with the arrangements it has.  If a new
negotiation is required, undertaking that agreement entails risk for
any party commencing the negotiation, so there needs to be something
in it for each party.  I get how the proposal offers something to the
names community, but it offers no advantage at all to the protocol
parameters community, and so I have a hard time seeing why they'd
engage.  That seems like a risk to the proposal you're offering, so
I'm suggesting a way that risk can be removed.

> been hard for the IETF or CRISP to come up with their own Integratede 
> model where they grabbed partial control of IANA from within ICANN.

I can't speak for CRISP, but I can say with a lot of confidence that
there are people around the IETF who have thought through how to do
this in other ways.  I don't think it would be hard to come up with an
answer at all.  Keep in mind that the IAB has had an IANA program for
some time, and we were working on documents about this long before
NTIA announced anything.  Part of the reason the proposal was pretty
easy in the IETF was that we'd been thinking about it for a long time,
so already had a bunch of stuff ready to go.  So, I think it is risky
to assume that the IETF would be unable to react to a situation where
it had to make a decision about what to do with the protocol
parameters, and I wouldn't be too sanguine that the result would be
"stay with whatever the names community does with IANA" unless the
results for the IETF are very similar to what are already in place.
(Note that this is not to prejudge that outcome.  But especially given
the late date, we ought to plan for all contingencies.)

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com