On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 04:06:50PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
I think we have different notions of what "separability" means. To me it means a community and customer-driven decision to change operators, not a decision by ICANN to move assets from one corporation to another.
Milton and I certainly don't agree about everything, but in this we are in lock step. The basic point of the ability of a community's ability to decide to change operators is, at bottom, the only real mechanism a community has to ensure that its oversight of the function is performed. That means that each operational community needs the effective ability to move its operations, even if the others do not. Having reflected on this for a couple days, it occurs to me that the transfer of the mark and domain name to PTI could be a problem in a somewhat different way. Suppose that at least one non-names operational community elects to stay with ICANN as opposed to contracting directly with PTI. ICANN will then be in the awkward position of contracting for a function without actually having guaranteed permanent access to the domain name or trademark or both. The proposal that transfers these assets to an independent trust (in the actual case, the IETF Trust, but my impression is that that was just because it happened already to exist) has the presumed advantage that everyone involved in any IANA work automatically gets access to the trademark and domain name. (I am assuming that the IETF Trust was also picked because of its history of holding such assets under quite permissive licenses, as a matter of policy.) This seems to be a dimension of the topic that needs serious contemplation, since the other operational communities could easily decide that if the terms on the IANA mark or the domain name are unfavourable, then they ought not to be accepted. Such a decision could be bad for the transition, or could result in IANA fragmentation when it is least desirable. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com