[Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 2. PTI: I understand Paul's concern re a potential delay in establishing the PTI
> and the question what should then happen with the numbers related SLA.
> But first it should be clear what "delay" means in this case as I don't see a
> concrete delay as long as the contract with NTIA still exists.

Yes, I found this a bit odd, too. I am afraid I have a more critical perspective on Paul's latest attempt to decouple the numbers and protocols proposals from names. 

Though I can't speak for the entire names community I think that to many of them it would be both inefficient - and unacceptable to the spirit of the overall stewardship transition and accountability reform process - for PTI to be confined to names only IANA functions. The point of the reform is to clearly, structurally and legally separate ICANN the names policy maker from the IANA functions. Any plan that leaves 2/3 of the IANA functions within ICANN does not meet that objective. The idea that a "delay" in creating PTI would somehow justify gutting that reform strikes me as a kind of flimsy rationale. We know numbers and protocols are eager to break free of the NTIA oversight, and I am totally sympathetic to those desires, but we've been told time and again that the proposal has to be a single unified one and NTIA won't accept it otherwise. The simple fact is that numbers and protocols will have to wait for PTI to be created before the transition is complete. There is no such thing as a "delay" here, if that means going beyond an arbitrary fixed date by which PTI must be created. There is only done or not done. Impatience from the numbers community can be a highly destructive factor if it creates pressures to back off the basic structural reforms, and frankly I do not see what the gain is, unless you believe that somehow the names transition will never be completed.