Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

John Curran wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2014, at 6:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> ...
>> In general, I think foundational arguments in this area are likely to
>> get us into a dark and very wet swamp.  It seems to me that we need to
>> concentrate on what outcome we want ("stuff stays the same"), and what
>> to do in case things fall apart.  "Stay the same" requires, as far as
>> I can tell, that we not try to negotiate for things we're unlikely to
>> get, because once you start negotiating you have to decide what things
>> you're willing to give up, and I think we don't want to give things up
>> because we like the way things are.  This means we need a different
>> plan for what to do in case things fall apart.
> I've been trying to stay out of this particular thread, but feel compelled
> to respond to the above in light of how far astray it is from the task
> now underway.
>
> I am not certain that "negotiation" is a constructive way to look at this
> problem space.  The ICG team needs to generate a single proposal to go to
> NTIA, and said proposal should address any issues that might arise with
> the transition of the stewardship for the IANA functions.
>
> If the IETF feels that there are no issues with respect to the IANA marks
> and domain name, then it doesn't need to raise the issue (and as per charter,
> should do the minimum possible and not mention it.)  This presumes that the
> IETF is satisfied with any possible outcome with respect to the marks and
> domain name, i.e. that there is no issue with respect to them during an
> IANA stewardship transition.
>
> If the IETF feels that there is a potential issue with respect to the marks
> and domain name during a stewardship transition from NTIA or with respect to
> any potential future IANA operator transition, then it should be mentioned
> in the IETF submission to the ICG.  If nothing else, the present shared usage
> of the marks and domain should be noted in the response as an existing working
> arrangement under "Section II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements"
>
> If the IETF feels that there is a potential issue, and furthermore that it
> has a preferred solution to that issue, then it should not only mention the
> issue, but note its _preferred_ solution.  That's not an ultimatum, but simply
> an expression of one or more possible solutions to the issue.
>
> None of this involves negotiation, posturing, or planning for failure; it is
> simply be fulfilling the request by the ICG to provide complete responses -
> if the IETF feels there is a potential issue with the present arrangements
> in this area post-transition, then it is my understanding that the IETF
> is obligated to at least note the existing working arrangement in its RFP
> response to the ICG.
>
>

As the submission, from the multiple stake-holder communities hit the 
ICG, and as those sitting at the ICG table attempt to reconcile the 
multiple proposals into one, do you really believe there isn't going to 
be any conflict and negotiation involved in merging things into a single 
proposal that everyone will sign off on?

Personally, I think that considerable conflict and negotiation can't be 
avoided - and I expect, at some point, NTIA is going to have to step in 
and play mediator.  (Just one man's opinion, of course).

Miles Fidelman


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra