Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?

John C Klensin <> Mon, 19 October 2015 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B351A902B for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MojG317geCsd for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A2D91A901D for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZoGRV-000227-Gi; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:50:01 -0400
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:49:56 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: John Levine <>,
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <20151019183240.61852.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <20151019183240.61852.qmail@ary.lan>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 19:50:15 -0000

--On Monday, October 19, 2015 18:32 +0000 John Levine
<>; wrote:

>> The "more technical" areas have had the ability to operate in
>> that way because they are in a stewardship context where
>> governmental inroads have been proscribed.
> You keep saying this.  Could you provide a pointer to the
> relevant section of the law, please?

John, thanks.

Seth, at best, "proscribed" is a little strong.  It was made
very clear during the organization/creation of ICANN that the US
Govt could (and would) intervene in the protocol and numbering
areas if they felt a need to do that.  One can attribute their
very light hand in those areas to any of their perception that
things are working well, that the serious and high-visibility
politics lie closer to domain name, that the disagreements about
success criteria I mentioned earlier have impacts in this area
as well, that the ICANN and its staff have been more active and
interventionist in the names area and hence require more
supervision, that John's comments about where the money flows
are relevant, and perhaps other reasons.  It is clear that there
have been very few direct or indirect government interventions
in recent years in the protocol parameter and numbering areas,
but, despite all the noise, there haven't been many
interventions in the names area either.  

But "proscribed"? I don't think so and, like John, I'd like to
see citations of law or anything else of substance.