[CWG-Stewardship] on "let them leave" (was Re: Update on the Integrated model.)

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 01:53:40PM -0600, John Poole wrote:

> In addition, if IETF or RIRs or anyone else--governments included--choose
> not to participate in IANA or ICANN, let them walk--no one is
> irreplaceable. ICANN, the IANA functions operator, should never be subject
> to extortionate demands from any source.

If I understand it what you are saying, then I think there may be a
deep misconception here.

The IANA functions provided to the RIRs and to the IETF are IANA
functions _by definition_.  If the RIRs or IETF decline to
participate, then those IANA functions go with them.  That's not an
extortionate demand, that's a matter of definition.

For instance, the IETF publishes parameters for the protocols it
produces.  Those parameters have historically been identified as "IANA
considerations" in IETF documents (and other RFCs, but leave that
wrinkle aside for now).  If the IETF had someone other than the
provider of IANA services to RIRs or the names community do it, they
would still be the same sort of thing.  Similarly, if the IETF decided
to start calling these "IETF parameter considerations" and to publish
them at ietfppr.org instead of iana.org, nothing would change about
the nature of the things (but it would be inconvenient to a lot of
people).

So, in an important sense the protocol parameters and number
communities _are_ irreplacable in IANA: if they were to leave, it
would no longer be the three-legged system that it now is, and would
become just the clerk of the root zone.  There isn't someone else who
can come along and produce IETF protocols.

Now, if you're saying that the IETF can't force ICANN to provide that
service, you're right.  That's why ICANN can terminate the agreement
with 6 months' notice.  

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com