Hi

David wrote:
" But without independence from the ICANN Board, the possibility that it
would ever actually exercise the "option of creating a RFP (request for
proposal) and possibly finding a new IANA function operator" (even though
its parent corporation and sole Member (i.e. ICANN) does*not* want it to do
that) strikes me as pretty slim, and without the ability to do that its not
really independent at all.  "

SO:
In the current configuration, PTI is not in the position to issue RFP, it's
rather the parent (ICANN) that is in the position to issue RFP based on the
recommendation of IRF team/possible escalation from CSC. The later which is
not yet very clear. So PTI is basically entering the current shoes of ICANN
and ICANN will be entering the shoes of NTIA post-transition

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 26 Apr 2015 14:20, "David Post" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Thanks, Avri, for your response - very helpful. I understand the point
> that there are LOTS of details still to be filled in, so I suppose I can
> postpone some of my questions until those are on the table.
>
> But this arrangement worries me, because in the ordinary sense, a
> wholly-owned subsidiary is most definitely *not *independent of its
> parent - in fact, the very opposite is usually true - and I'm just not
> aware of a lot of models where something like this actually works to
> counter that inherent dependence.  Maybe there are such things out there
> and I'm just not aware of them, and maybe the right combination of ICANN
> and PTI by-law provisions, and contract language, and procedures for
> selecting the PTI Board can be devised to give the PTI Board real
> independence, and I just haven't seen them yet.  But without independence
> from the ICANN Board, the possibility that it would ever actually exercise
> the "option of creating a RFP (request for proposal) and possibly finding
> a new IANA function operator" (even though its parent corporation and
> sole Member (i.e. ICANN) does *not *want it to do that) strikes me as
> pretty slim, and without the ability to do that its not really independent
> at all.
>
> David
>
>
> At 04:51 AM 4/24/2015, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The original positions in the CWG ranged from maintaining the status quo
> to a completely free standng IANA model.  The supporters of both of these
> options have strong reasons and resolve.  We were making no progress on
> finding agreement.
>
> A hybrid position was offered after the Singapore meeting,  proposing a
> shared service held by the 3 operational communities: names, number and
> protocols. This offered both legal separation but joint affiliation with
> the various operational communities.  That could not be accepted becasue
> the other communities did not want to take on the extra repsonsiblity and
> objected strongly to the Naming commmunity coming up with a solution that
> presupposed their participation.  So we ended up coming down to a single
> member affiliate.  Those who supported the full free standing IANA
> proposal, mostly, accepted that having legal separation was a minimum, but
> could be acceptable as a first step, with other steps possible in the
> future if necessary.
>
> Since IANA would be subsidiary to ICANN we are therefore also including in
> the model, probably in a fundamental bylaw,  a process by which further
> separation could be achieved if necessary.  This is described in the
> proposal.  Briefly, the IANA Function Review (IFR) Team (IFRT) could
> recommend that there was a problem with the then current arrangement and
> recommend that further separation discussions be initiated.  The current
> proposal is still open on whether at that point:
>
> - a Cross Community WG, similar to the CWG-IANA or to the ICG  (IANA
> stewardship transition Coordination Group), would be established to work on
> that issue with the option of creating a RFP (request for proposal) and
> possibly finding a new IANA function operator.
>
> - the IFR team itself could then begin the work on a RFP and finding a new
> IANA Function Operator.
>
> The CWG is looking for community opinion on these alternatives, so if NCSG
> has a recommendation, it would be a good thing to offer in our comments.
>
> In terms of the degree of control that ICANN has of the affiliate, we are
> still discussing the degree to which the affiliate will be subject to ICANN
> mangement and working for as much independent action as possible.  The
> contract between ICANN and its affiliate would define the relationship as
> well as the requirements on each side.  The Post Transtion IANA (PTI) would
> have its own largely independent Board.
>
> Devils and details still abound.
>
> avri
> (NCSG member on the CWG-IANA)
>
> On 23-Apr-15 11:27, David Post wrote:
>
> Milton/All
>
> I'm sure this was talked about at length during the development of the
> proposal, but it does seem rather odd to me that "functional and legal
> separation" between the IANA naming functions and ICANN (which I agree is
> an important principle) has been implemented in this proposal by means of
> setting up a new corporation that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ICANN's
> (with an ICANN-designated Board - sec III.A.i.b).  Can you say a few words
> as to why you think that provides for the necessary independence?  The PTI
> Board will be answerable to the ICANN Board, because ICANN is the only
> "member" of PTI - ??
>
> David
>
>
> The At 10:58 AM 4/23/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Dear NCSG-ers:
>
> The domain names part of the IANA transition is finally being formed. A
> draft proposal was released yesterday and it is open for public comment.
>
> In my view, this is a big win for accountability. By legally separating
> the IANA functions operator from ICANN, it will be easier to hold ICANN’s
> board and staff accountable for the policy making process, and easier to
> hold the post-transition IANA accountable for its performance of the IANA
> functions. Lines of responsibility will be more direct, and policy more
> clearly separated from implementation.
>
> The proposal also promotes accountability by creating a periodic review
> process that could allow the names community to “fire” the existing IANA if
> there was great dissatisfaction with its performance. This enhances the
> accountability sought by the numbers and protocols communities as well as
> creating separability for the names community for the first time.
>
> The legal affiliate structure seems to have found the middle ground in the
> debate over ICANN’s role in the IANA functions. Although IANA will still be
> a subsidiary of ICANN, Inc., thus defusing any concerns about creating new
> organizations, it will have a separate board and a clearer line of
> demarcation between the politics of ICANN the policy maker and the
> technical coordination functions provided by the IANA functions operator.
>
> You can read the (very long) proposal here:
>
> https ://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en
> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en>
>
> You can comment on it here:
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
>
>
>
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
>
> *******************************
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>  [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/>  <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
>
> *******************************
>