Seun:





ICANN is BOTH the policy source for names AND the maintainer of the IANA registry for names. So you are ducking the question:

SO: No i am not, you asked for differences NOT similarities and just for the record, ICANN is NOT currently IANA maintainer for names, VeriSign is. ICANN is however the IANA manager for both names and numbers (including being maintainer for numbers)



MM: Sorry, but there is some verbal confusion here. I called ICANN the maintainer of the IANA names registry. That is what ICANN’s IANA does, it edits and updates the root zone file for DNS. I know that NTIA’s idiosyncratic terminology calls Verisign, which DNSSEC-signs and publishes the root zone maintained by IANA, the “RZ Maintainer.” But that doesn’t change the fact that currently, in the names area, the IANA functions and the policy development functions are combined in the same entity, ICANN, and in numbers and protocols they are not. My question to you – which you still have not answered – is this:



why shouldn’t names have the same structural separation between the policy maker and the IANA implementer?

SO: I am not sure any part of my statement implied what you have stated above.



MM: Just answer the question. Stop avoiding it. Don’t we need to separate IANA into PTI to get to the same place as numbers and protocols? Do you oppose separability on principle? Or do you support it now?



SO: One may argue that it will be in the interest of names(especially the Gs) that ICANN continue to stand.



MM: What does “continue to stand” mean? Do you mean have a permanent monopoly on the provision of the names-related IANA functions? Or do you mean something else?



SO: For numbers and protocol it will make a lot of sense to move it's database from ICANN (when required) because it's policy development process is independent of ICANN. Same cannot be said for names(excluding ccTLD) and maybe that is why some don't see much sense in the proposed contractual arrangements for names.



MM: Why does it make sense for numbers and protocols and not for names? You have never answered this.



MM: If you don’t accept legal separation of PTI and continue to push for an ICANN monopoly on IANA, there will be no consensus on this latest proposal and the transition will probably fail. I can guarantee you that there will never be consensus on a purely internal solution.



SO: With due respect Milton, I am quite amazed at your statement above as i have not said ALAC is stopping anything. Please remember that i am also a member of the CWG and have been following the process quite keenly (to the best of my ability). The proposal we currently have was presented to the community on behalf of the entire CWG and its only the community's view that would ultimately determine next steps for the CWG proposal. Neither of us can stop anything if there is consensus from majority of the community towards a certain solution.

MM: So you agree that PTI should be formed as a separate legal entity? Will you say this in your public comments or not?