Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Andrew,

Please see responses and questions below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sullivan
> Sent: jeudi, 6. novembre 2014 03:15
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re:
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 07:11:28PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > No.. I'm NOT saying some Internet Boss outside the IETF.  I'm
> saying that
> > processes for addressing technical issues are inadequate for
> dealing with
> > issues that go beyond technical issues (kind of sounds like a
> tautology).
>
> No, it sounds like an assertion about process -- that there's some
> sort of quiddity in political issues that make them impenetrable to
> rough consensus and running code.

Not impenetrable, but inappopriate.  Political issues should be decided by
democratic processes, meaning either directly by the people or by freely
elected representatives of the people.  That's not just my opinion, it is
international law enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And in numerous
national constitutions.

Democratic processes involve formal accountability, unlike rough consensus.
Note that I have no problems with rough conensus for certain issues, I just
don't think that it is appropriate for political issues.

In rough consensus, the chairs have considerable leeway to determine what
the consenus is, and there are limited appeals mechanisms.  In formal
systems, the consensus (or lack of it) is tested through formal votes.
Voting is obviously not possible in the IETF, because there are no members.
And, again, that's fine for some things, but not other things.

In my opinion, a variant of "rough consensus" also exists in the political
sphere, it is called "autocracy".  When people don't like the decisions made
by the rulers, they cannot vote, but they can, if it gets bad enough,
revolt.  And that's not just theory, it actually happens.

The equivalent in IETF, as you and others have pointed out, is that people
will not use the IETF standards.  That is, if the IETF leadership gets a
"rough consensus" call wrong, then the market will let them know.

But that's typically not possible, or at least not desirable, for political
issues, hence the general agreement that the preferred method to make
political decisions is democracy (as defined above).

>You've presented not a single piece
> of evidence for that assertion; neither has anyone else.  I'm weary of
> pointing this out.

Does the above help?

>
> I'm not a complete moron, despite appearances.

You certainly do not appear to me to be a moron.  On the contrary, you
appear to me to be intelligent, well-informed, articulate, and determined.
Same as other people on this list.

>I know that many
> processes would require considering different kinds of interest.  But
> we're only supposed to be reporting from the community interested in
> protocol parameters.

Yes, but, in line with the request from NTIA, that includes the "global
multi-stakeholder community", which is broader than the people who are
involved with protocol parameters on a daily basis.

>I'm having a very hard time understanding who
> exactly we're missing.

As I recall, the point was made that some legal advice might be in order.
For example, regarding whether "public domain" is the appropriate status for
the actual data.  I'm very comfortable with public domain for the data, but
I'm a bit of an extremist when it comes to intellectual property (I'm a
member of the Pirate Party), so I can understand why others might want some
expert advice on alternatives.

>
> > The IETF process for dealing with contracts is to delegate things to the
> > IAOC, rather than deliberate them the way protocol issues are
> deliberated.
>
> No.  The IETF process for this is to express its views, ensure that
> the IAB understands those and ensure that IAB members are sufficiently
> attuned to the wider interests, and to ensure that the IAOC has a good
> understanding.

I agree.  So I think that we are only disagreeing regarding the level of
specificity that is appropriate and desirable.  In my view, we should
specify clearly what we think should happen regarding the intellectual
property, which includes the actual data, the mark, the domain name, and
maybe other items (but I cannot think of any).

>
> > The IAB and IAOC are part of the IETF, but are not normally part of the
> > technical process.
>
> You keep saying that as though these are disjoint groups.  What do you
> think Russ, or Eliot, or I do when we go inside the IAB tent?  Forget
> everything we know?
>
> > I'll ask the question: why is that a problem, or something to
> be avoided?
> > Most contracts are negotiated.  The MoU, presumably, was
> negotiated.  The
> > NTIA contract that is being replaced was negotiated.
>
> I don't think that there's anything in our current arrangements we
> want to lose.  That is what I heard in the IGOVUPDATE and IANAPLAN
> BoFs, and I think that's what the charter says.  If you're going to
> negotiate, you have to be prepared to give something up.

I still get lost when people mention negotiating.  What are the parties to
the negotiation?

This process is an ICANN process.  The output will be sent, on behalf of
ICANN, to the NTIA.  ICANN surely is not going to negotiate with itself.  So
who are the parties to the negotiation?

> What is it
> that you want to sacrifice for the trademark and domain name?  If
> you'll say that, it would help.

Why would anybody have to sacrifice anything?  Again, it is ICANN that would
propose to the NTIA that the intellectual property be handled in this and
this way.

>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>