Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 29 September 2015 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
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 B95641ACEA7 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Zg7_rfAz8RoP for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7671C1ACEA6 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35028F2416C; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:33 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vPoRhDsb2VYM; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:00:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.20.2.141] (65-118-212-124.dia.static.qwest.net [65.118.212.124]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F90F2416B; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:02 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <560AC921.4090700@gih.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:00:51 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D838CBAB-B68F-407A-9D83-8CAA745D00F9@vigilsec.com>
References: <56A1B728-98DF-409A-B2B6-2624F53FE175@cooperw.in> <3A58359B-420B-4FEC-B812-4659D980C5D3@vigilsec.com> <CAD_dc6gSKTURuXkFuay8dUKm6i+c9amEgmRQ_-Y37C_hv5i45Q@mail.gmail.com> <20150929151542.GB86614@mx2.yitter.info> <560AC921.4090700@gih.com>
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/3_sQ1Nikrty1mYZ5xPxYwogXX3c>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 29 Sep 2015 18:01:46 -0000

Olivier:

> On 29/09/2015 16:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> 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
>> inventions.
> 
> I understand the reticence in "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". The
> recommendation was made by several entities, including the ALAC. We were
> concerned that whilst today there appears to be several informal
> channels, the future might not keep it this way. So we felt that it
> would be a good idea to keep at least a formal channel open so that we
> don't end up with one operational community deciding to split without
> finding a way to keep the three functions operated by the same IANA
> functions operator.

Please take a look at the comments from the IAB to the ICG (see https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-icg-proposal/).  This part is especially relevant here:

   Informal and loosely-coupled coordination
   has worked well in the past, and it produced the coherent ICG proposal
   without formal liaisons among the communities.  We believe that this web
   of relationships is a strong expression of the multistakeholder model,
   and that there is no need to concentrate these relationships within new
   ICANN structures.  The IAB does not oppose additional formal links in
   principle if they are found to be useful in the future, and we believe
   we have all of the necessary mechanisms for adding them.  In general,
   however, we prefer informal coordination and communication among the
   communities, and we generally prefer to avoid creating additional
   organizational structures.  We believe this organizational model
   reflects the way the Internet works.

> I'd see it as an opportunity to enhance collaboration between
> operational communities. As individuals we are not immortal. I have no
> idea what the next generations will be like and whether this collegial
> collaboration will continue.

The operational communities need to have informal communication among themseleves whether they share the same IANA functions operator or not.

To me, the best response to the ICG is that informal coordination existed today and we will continue it in the future.

Russ