[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> Right now, the IETF has a simple system: it runs the policy, and it outsources
> the entire operation of the registry to ICANN.  The IETF has to process the
> service statistics from IANA, and once a year there's some effort on SLAs, but
> this is a pretty low-overhead, outsourced-operator approach. 

I really don't see how the proposed configuration differs much from that. 
I agree that there would be some initial setup costs, and I partially agree that IETF does not get an immediate tangible benefit from this, but I do think IETF has a very substantial long term interest in a more rational, well-structured approach to IANA. The integrated model establishes a symmetrical relationship for names, numbers and protocols and I think IETF people understand the logic and benefits of that. Also, in earlier NTIA proceedings the IETF has expressed a preference for keeping the IANA functions coordinated and under one roof, which Avri's model seems to think is very important (I personally don't agree with that). 

So it is in the public interest, if not the IETF's immediate private interest, to make these changes, and my experience with IETF leadership is that while they are often fiercely protective of their independence and 'self'-interest as an organization, they can also be responsive to broader calls for reforms that are in the general interest. An example of that would be the IETF's participation in the Montevideo Statement, which helped to kick this process of IANA globalization into motion.

> Moreover, the proposal
> seems to work from the assumption that the IETF's ability to leave and go
> elsewhere is a thing to be "mitigated", but the IETF appears to like that
> arrangement.

I agree with you here, this is why I asked Avri about the separability issue. 

> In order to do this, one would start with the ICANN subsidiary configuration.
> But instead of changing the MOU & SLAs from the RIRs and from the IETF,
> those just remain with ICANN.  In other words, the non-names communities
> see no difference.

I would see value in a modification of the integrated model in a way that did not require changing the IETF MoU and SLA (note that there currently is no RIR SLA/MoU, that is yet to be established afaik). But I share some of Chuck's concerns about a Nomcom. 

> A significant benefit to this approach is that it drastically minimizes changes.
> Indeed, for two of the three affected communities, the effect is practically
> nothing.  The names community of course has more work to do, but it is the
> community has the most confused current arrangements, so this only
> clarifies the arrangements in the case where they need it.  Because it puts
> IANA into a different organization that ICANN, it requires an agreement
> between the policy authority (or authorities) for names (within ICANN) and
> the IANA operator strictly construed.  Presumably ICANN would also need to
> contract with PTI for the SLAs to satisfy ICANN's obligations to the IETF and
> RIRs, but I am assuming for these purposes that would be easy to do.

This is the kind of symmetry that I think the advocates of the integrated model, and advocates of structural separation more generally, are trying to achieve. So if you understand those benefits there is hope that a meeting of the minds can be arrived at