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

[manning bill <[e-mail]>]

Jon, if I may, I’d like to recast this fine debate into more crisp terms.

We (the great unwashed) have trusted Postel  (the IANA) and his successors & assigns (SRI, NS, GA, IETF, RIRs, ICANN) to act in such a way as to 
continue the trust built up over the decades. Now some subset of these parties has openly questioned what is the “correct” response if the current
holder of the IANA functions (or a subset of the IANA functions), acts in a manner that is detrimental to the long term health of the Internet.
 
Removal of or rehoming some of the trappings of power (who controls IANA.*) seems like a niche question at best.

For me, the more fundamental problem is:  a) how to tell when an operator of one of these functions has lost it,  and  b) how to neutralize the impact 
of a rouge operator.

 
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 8November2014Saturday, at 8:42, Peterson, Jon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> Sure, but the steps we take today to safeguard ourselves from possible
> contingencies could be unilateral demands that alienate our peers or they
> could approach this in the spirit of past cooperation. I'm worried that if
> we strike the wrong posture, we could end up inspiring the very split
> we're hoping to guard against. So I think it's fair to say that I'd want
> our current ICG response process to think cooperatively, rather than
> antagonisticly, say.
> 
> Jon Peterson
> Neustar, Inc.
> 
> On 11/8/14, 7:51 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 07:37:04AM -0800, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>> 
>>> [BA] Since "IANA .org" affects all the communities, this needs to be
>>> handled cooperatively.
>> 
>> Wait, no.  I deny this premise for the purposes of this discussion.
>> 
>> We _already_ have in the draft a term that says "iana.org goes with
>> the operator."  This is, AIUI, a request for a term that is already in
>> effect.
>> 
>> What we are talking about is a case where different registries go
>> their separate ways, and they do so un-co-operatively.  In that case,
>> _by definition_, iana.org won't affect all communities (or anyway,
>> can't affect them all in the same way).
>> 
>> By definition, it can't be handled co-operatively in this case,
>> because we're already into non-co-operation as part of the scenario
>> we're trying to cope with.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> -- 
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> [e-mail]
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan