[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

[Seun Ojedeji]

This could be an interesting discussion/insight for the consumption of the
CWG.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Date: 20 May 2015 01:17
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
To: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
Cc: "ianaplan at ietf.org" <ianaplan at ietf.org>, "Olaf Kolkman" <
kolkman at isoc.org>

On 20/05/2015 03:18, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > However, no matter where the names community locates itself on that
> spectrum, PTI is still "meaningfully" separated from ICANN. The assets and
> staff and operations management of PTI would have been moved out of ICANN
> corporate, 94% of which is names policy related, and into a separately run
> entity. The work flow process, as John Curran noted yesterday, would become
> explicit and that would be a meaningful change in terms of separating
> policy from implementation. By creating a separate affiliate, a contract
> and creating a periodic review process which has rebidding the contract
> possible, we also make it more feasible to fire PTI and use a different
> IANA functions provider.
>
> I've been mulling over the implications of this. Either PTI will be
> controlled by ICANN or it won't. If it *is* effectively controlled
> by ICANN, the IETF can sit back and relax until our SLA is no longer
> met, in which case we go to Plan B (i.e. no change in the state that
> has existed for 15 years).
>
> If PTI is *not* effectively controlled by ICANN, we are straight
> into Plan B: giving notice to ICANN and bidding out a protocol
> parameter services contract, with PTI as an obvious bidder,
> hopefully at zero cost. (I would seriously expect several zero-
> cost bids to show up.)
>
> What does 'effectively controlled' mean? I think it's an empirical
> question. As a counter-example, Ports of Auckland is wholly owned
> by Auckland Council Investments Limited, itself owned by the
> Auckland Council. But Ports of Auckland prefers to ignore
> the wishes of the community* that elected Auckland Council when
> it suits their commercial interests. This is a direct result of
> the transition from the port being in public ownership to being
> semi-privatized.
>
>   Brian
>
> * if you're interested:
>
> http://pilot.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/67454039/famous-aucklanders-protest-port-extension
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150520/908e1532/attachment.html>