Hi, On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:01:05PM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Can anyone provide either a general answer or specific scenarios where the two-party solution is better.
I cannot think of a reason why this should be enshrined. I can think if an excellent reason not to change that _now_, however: the relationship is there at the moment, and it's better to change as little as possible as a matter of prudence. See below.
1.c.1 Says that we need to consider increasing robustness WITHIN IANA prior to the CWG proposal being submitted.
1.c.2 Says we need to consider robustness everywhere (including within IANA) post transition.
I am not aware of the justification for 1.c.1 other than it was sort of implied by the transfer of tasks from DT-D. But since NTIA did not refuse authorizations and there are no known problems, it is not clear that this is an urgent matter.
Moreover I find it highly unlikely that a proper job of this could be done prior to transition if it occurs in 2015 or early 2016.
Do we want to keep it?
Unless there is an operational definition of "increase robustness" (i.e. a proposal for how robustness is increased, and one that specifies the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowing what that increase is and to what extent it has happened), I think 1.c.1 is actively harmful. It continues to indulge the myth that NTIA is doing something that the IANA names community can't or won't do. If someone has an operationalized proposal, and can show that it is important, that's a different matter (though it raises the question of whether it's a good idea to undertake the transition when such improvements need to be made). Otherwise, the text increases the odds that we'll get a needlessly destabilizing change to the IANA arrangements at exactly the moment where we want to keep everything as stable as possible. After all, if we change IANA and take the NTIA away at the same time, then if something goes wrong afterwards we won't know whether it was the change to IANA or the loss of the NTIA that made the difference. Mill's methods teach us to change one thing at a time if we want to understand cause, and I can think of no better time than now to invoke that principle. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com