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

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Tue, 04 November 2014 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8A01A03E3 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 01:25:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b5glPxM5WVVy for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 01:25:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:18cc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D96F51A8029 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 01:25:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-39-117-99.adslplus.ch [178.39.117.99]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA49PaKX004533; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:25:38 +0100
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, ianaplan@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:25:28 +0100
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNEENECNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <20141103222034.GA28757@mx1.yitter.info>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/jH9375iXckrvAkagXE44-nJ9dhE
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 09:25:44 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sullivan
> Sent: lundi, 3. novembre 2014 23:21
> To: ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re:
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:54:05PM +0100, Richard Hill wrote:
> > Why?  NTIA asked ICANN to prepare a transtion plan.  In turn,
> ICANN tasked
> > the ICG to prepare that plan.  So the plan that will be
> transmitted by the
> > ICG will be ICANN's plan.
>
> But ICG has to submit something that achieves broad multistakeholder
> support.  ICANN is in a position,

You've lost me again.  As I understand the situation, NTIA asked ICANN to
convene a process to produce a transition plan.  ICANN chartered the ICG to
do that. The ICG has asked each of the operational communities to produce a
plan for what concerns them.

This group is doing that.  The output of this group will go to ICG, and then
to NTIA.

So, for the purposes of this exercise we *are* ICANN.  Indeed, ICANN is
comprised of its constituencies.

So when you say "ICANN is in a position", I don't understand what you mean.

Do you mean "the ICANN Board", or "the ICANN staff"?  Or something else?

>if we insist on something they don't
> like, to bring the whole thing to a halt a the ICG.

As far as I know, the ICG is an emanation of ICANN, and neither the ICANN
Board nor the ICANN staff are going to tell ICG what to do or not to do.

> If the ICG
> overrules and says, "Nope, gonna do it that way,"

What would the ICG overrule?  Again, the ICG has been chartered by ICANN to
prepare a proposal, and that proposal will not be subject to approval by the
ICANN Board.

>then the NTIA
> requirement for Internet community support will be demonstrably
> missed.
>
> People who think we get to choose whatever we want, regardless of how
> acceptable it is to ICANN, have a different world-view than mine.

Indeed, we seem to have rather different world views, because, to me, this
process is ICANN, whereas you seem to think that it is outside ICANN.  Maybe
the difference in views is due to my incipient senility.

>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>