[Internal-cg] combined proposal assessment

[Paul Wilson]

Milton, I guess you are referring to this paragraph of my document:

> Establishment of the PTI appears to be a prerequisite for the IANA 
> transition to occur, and therefore a delay in that process would delay 
> the completion of the entire transition plan.  In case of a delay, the 
> Names proposal would necessarily be delayed, due to its dependency on 
> the PTI; however implementation of the Numbers and Protocols proposals 
> could proceed, with ICANN continuing to provide IANA services.

My intention, which I guess should be clearer, is that if the transition 
of Numbers and Protocols functions were to precede the establishment of 
the PTI, then it is still expected that a transfer of those functions to 
the PTI would occur as soon as the PTI is able to take them on.  This is 
in the common interest of all communities, not just for names or 
“others”.

I am as committed as anyone to the simple singular transition of all 
functions at one time, but I must highlight the possibility of delays 
that could prevent the PTI from being established within the expected 
timeframe.  What is unproductive I think is to suggest ulterior 
motivations for my raising this concern, when I am being as transparent 
as I can be in this discussion.

Paul.





On 14 Jul 2015, at 23:48, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> -----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

________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                        dg at apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net                                            @apnicdg