[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> This is a key point, I think: the MoU between ICANN and the IETF says
> that either party can terminate with 6 months' notice.  This entails that
> it has always been possible for the IANA functions to split.  But the IETF
> has been quite clear that it has no interest in such a split and would
> prefer things remain together.
> 

Right. I think Avri and others hyperventilating about splitting the IANA functions are creating a mountain out of a molehill. 

There are some minor areas where the IANA functions benefit from being under the same roof, but most of the work is independent. There is no hard technical requirement for being in the same organization as long as certain forms of coordination are maintained or enabled in some other way. But no one, certainly not IETF, is interested in splitting them for the sake of splitting them. If IETF chose to walk away from the current IANA functions provider, I am sure it would be for a very good reason. It is up to them to decide whether the potential risks of doing are outweighed by the benefits (or avoidance of bad things) they saw. 

It is also possible that the three communities, or two of the three, could coordinate a switch to a new provider if it became necessary. If IANA were performing terribly for numbers or protocols it might also be performing terribly for names.

The idea that allowing a dissatisfied customer of the IANA functions to switch means that the IANA will inherently become fragmented is really kind of absurd. It's like saying that married couples should never be allowed to divorce because they are always better off together. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but the benefits and costs of each option are for them to decide.