<p dir="ltr">This could be an interesting discussion/insight for the consumption of the CWG. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: "Brian E Carpenter" <<a href="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com">brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: 20 May 2015 01:17<br>Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF<br>To: "Milton L Mueller" <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>><br>Cc: "<a href="mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org">ianaplan@ietf.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org">ianaplan@ietf.org</a>>, "Olaf Kolkman" <<a href="mailto:kolkman@isoc.org">kolkman@isoc.org</a>><br><br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 20/05/2015 03:18, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
<br>
<snip><br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
I've been mulling over the implications of this. Either PTI will be<br>
controlled by ICANN or it won't. If it *is* effectively controlled<br>
by ICANN, the IETF can sit back and relax until our SLA is no longer<br>
met, in which case we go to Plan B (i.e. no change in the state that<br>
has existed for 15 years).<br>
<br>
If PTI is *not* effectively controlled by ICANN, we are straight<br>
into Plan B: giving notice to ICANN and bidding out a protocol<br>
parameter services contract, with PTI as an obvious bidder,<br>
hopefully at zero cost. (I would seriously expect several zero-<br>
cost bids to show up.)<br>
<br>
What does 'effectively controlled' mean? I think it's an empirical<br>
question. As a counter-example, Ports of Auckland is wholly owned<br>
by Auckland Council Investments Limited, itself owned by the<br>
Auckland Council. But Ports of Auckland prefers to ignore<br>
the wishes of the community* that elected Auckland Council when<br>
it suits their commercial interests. This is a direct result of<br>
the transition from the port being in public ownership to being<br>
semi-privatized.<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
<br>
* if you're interested:<br>
<a href="http://pilot.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/67454039/famous-aucklanders-protest-port-extension" target="_blank">http://pilot.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/67454039/famous-aucklanders-protest-port-extension</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ianaplan mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ianaplan@ietf.org">Ianaplan@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan</a><br>
</blockquote></div>