<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Dear Avri:<br></div>Thank you for your most recent posting (below) about the so-called "Integrated" model--not only do I concur with your own critique of that model ("I personally hate the idea of splitting IANA, and think it is a disastrous thing to do"--Avri) which saves me a lot of time in this response, I also have further objections:<br><br></div>1. It is by far the most complex model proposed thus far--exceeding anything proposed in either of the 2 external models (Contract Co or Trust) or the 2 internal models pre-ICANN 52. This is counter to comments made at ICANN 52 (I listened to them all) as well as many comments to the original draft proposal as being "too complex." Because of its complexity, the Integrated model raises numerous legal as well as operational issues and possibly unforeseen problems that will need to be first addressed by groups outside of this CWG--some of those have already been identified in this mail thread-<i>-e.g.</i>, IETF <i>et al.</i><br><br></div>2. Beyond the question of legal advisability of separating IANA from ICANN, or the
ramifications of doing so upon ICANN's policy making and regulatory authority which I
raised last week, I object to putting ICANN in the potential position where it could be held "hostage" by IANA functions controlled by third parties, or the IANA functions could potentially be "captured," by a select group of
stakeholders to the exclusion of the global
multistakeholder community whose interests (<i>i.e.,</i> the Global Public Interest) the ICANN Board of Directors is ultimately supposed to represent (see <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en" target="_blank">Affirmation of Commitments</a>). The IANA department is a small department (11 people)
fulfilling a very important, necessary role in the coordination of the
DNS, and apparently <a href="http://www.internetassignednumbersauthority.org/reports/2014/customer-survey-20141217.pdf">doing it quite well</a>. ICANN is the IANA functions operator on behalf of the entire global multistakeholder community, not just the names, numbers, or protocols communities. ICANN should thus remain the IANA functions operator post-transition, as it is pre-transition, without the threat of unilateral take-over by select self-interested groups.<br><br></div>3. I now have it on good authority that neither NTIA nor ICANN have taken "off the table" any of the four models (2 external, 2 internal) which were "on the table" pre-ICANN 52. I frankly do not understand why anyone would draft a 5th proposal that contains a potentially "disastrous thing to do" in the opinion of one or more of its own authors, and yet we are spending precious time on this at the CWG meeting tomorrow. Are we just filling time and trying to look "busy" while awaiting procurement of independent legal counsel? Has this CWG really become that dysfunctional? Or are we now reduced to making dangerous or "disastrous" compromises ("integrated" proposals) in a feeble attempt to reach "consensus?"<br><br></div>4. I do not understand your statement (below) "as was foredained by the ICG?" When and where did ICG "foredain" the idea of splitting IANA?<br></div><div> <br>5. Finally the ultimate question that every model should answer to the clear satisfaction of the CWG before being proposed to ICG--What happens<i> "in extremis" </i>(ICANN insolvency, hostile capture of IANA or ICANN, etc.)? From my perspective, it looks like the Integrated model offers nothing but chaos in such a situation.<br><br></div><div>I know you are an experienced policy wonk and will not take personally any of the above (but in fact welcome my straightforward comments). I personally value your presence and many contributions to the work of this CWG.<br><br></div>Best regards,<br></div>John Poole<br><div><div><div><div><pre><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001868.html">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001868.html</a><br>Avri Doria avri at <a href="http://acm.org">acm.org</a><br>Mon Feb 23 04:02:22 UTC 2015<br><br><i>While I personally hate the idea of splitting IANA, and think it is a
disastrous thing to do, it remains possible in this model as was
foreordained by the ICG.
I do hope the Integrated model* helps make that less likely. but if any
of the 3 operational communities wants to leave, they could.
avri
* and it is not mine though I am representing it, at least over the
weekend - i am one of three authors</i></pre></div></div></div></div></div>