[Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment

[WUKnoben]

Thanks Milton, these are my thoughts, too.

So we have to be clear about what it means "...that the proposal has to be a 
single unified one and NTIA won't accept it otherwise..."

Wouldn't this then mean in consequence that for the contractual relationship 
of the SLAs no real alternative is given rather than a subcontract with the 
PTI?

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Milton L Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 9:48 PM
To: WUKnoben ; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment



> -----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.


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org