Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Andrew Sullivan <> Tue, 29 September 2015 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90621A92FC for <>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZitxJmwsSdU6 for <>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:fedf:cfab]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38F31A92B7 for <>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AA010732 for <>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:15:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zeb9o4c7thHk for <>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:15:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C2671072D for <>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:15:43 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:15:42 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
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: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:15:46 -0000


On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 06:22:48AM -0700, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> coordination is fine. I think it may be good for other operational
> communities to be aware (carried along) when any of the 3 Identifier
> communities initiates its/her operator change process and i think it may be
> good to have formal commitment to that.

I appreciate the sentiment here, but how is that any different from
the existing informal co-ordination we already do?  I don't see how
it'd even be possible, given the transparent way each community works,
for any of the other communities to be oblivious to the coming change
unless there really were no inter-community participation.  If we get
to that point, we'll have many formal communications to set up, not
just this one.

Not to put too fine a point on it, two of the communities work in very
lightly structured ways with mostly informal mechanisms of
communication and as few hard process rules as is possible.  They
produced fairly short proposals in time for the original ICG deadline.
Another community appears to structure itself rather formally, with
consituencies, formal membership rules, and attempts at strict
representativity.  That community has, well past the original
deadline, produced a proposal for the ICG; yet even that proposal
depends on _another_ proposal that still isn't complete and, in draft
form, is complicated and controversial.

I am therefore not convinced even a little bit that additional formal
commitments, rules, processes, or anything of that sort, are
advisable.  The goal is to make the Internet better, not to achieve a
nicely designed process.  As the WG (and, in other contexts, the IAB)
said, the appoach we're using today (which is mostly informal) is
working well.  There is no reason to invent new ways of ensuring that
communication when the communication now flows without such

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan