On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:51:52AM -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
First on Nomcom. This model rest on a notion of subsidiarity acccording to operational community; if a nomcom were used it should be the nomcom of the operational community. The idea of creating a new nomcom that was 3 operational communities wide scares me more than the creation of the Contracting Co. would
Well, yes, but in my response I was more or less suggesting that some of the other operational communities might not want to join such a board, and therefore there would really be only one operational community to represent. I agree that setting up a new nomcom "3 communities wide" would be a great way to arrange failure, but I was assuming that the control over the new subsidiary doesn't like in those other communities because, in effect, they have no direct relationship with it. But anyway, this detail seems to me to be one that could be worked out depending on which way we wanted to go.
while as strong as any internal model, would not be as strong as if the SLA were moved to the Post Transition IANA (PTI).
But this is part of the fundamental issue. What is basically being suggested is that the other communities (numbers and protocol parameters) need to open new negotiations for their arrangements with an entirely new organization. The IETF, at least, has been crystal clear that it is happy with the arrangements it has. If a new negotiation is required, undertaking that agreement entails risk for any party commencing the negotiation, so there needs to be something in it for each party. I get how the proposal offers something to the names community, but it offers no advantage at all to the protocol parameters community, and so I have a hard time seeing why they'd engage. That seems like a risk to the proposal you're offering, so I'm suggesting a way that risk can be removed.
been hard for the IETF or CRISP to come up with their own Integratede model where they grabbed partial control of IANA from within ICANN.
I can't speak for CRISP, but I can say with a lot of confidence that there are people around the IETF who have thought through how to do this in other ways. I don't think it would be hard to come up with an answer at all. Keep in mind that the IAB has had an IANA program for some time, and we were working on documents about this long before NTIA announced anything. Part of the reason the proposal was pretty easy in the IETF was that we'd been thinking about it for a long time, so already had a bunch of stuff ready to go. So, I think it is risky to assume that the IETF would be unable to react to a situation where it had to make a decision about what to do with the protocol parameters, and I wouldn't be too sanguine that the result would be "stay with whatever the names community does with IANA" unless the results for the IETF are very similar to what are already in place. (Note that this is not to prejudge that outcome. But especially given the late date, we ought to plan for all contingencies.) Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com