Re: [Ianaplan] What are the RIRs doing?

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Mon, 08 September 2014 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mueller@syr.edu>
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 E69CB1A0338 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652] 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 jiMeYDr6CPGS for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.syr.edu (smtp2.syr.edu [128.230.18.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71EC41A0326 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 12:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EX13-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-04.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.134]) by smtp2.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s88JVfgd017573 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:31:41 -0400
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.134) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:31:40 -0400
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:31:40 -0400
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] What are the RIRs doing?
Thread-Index: AQHPy2l3gU4l3fq9lkueZp6d3LBWg5v3lvfAgABEHID//8TTcA==
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 19:31:39 +0000
Message-ID: <6cc72f87d12d48d5ae76bd8d687640f9@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <540DB003.1060900@cisco.com> <a9927883f15b4da7aa03735b5efeae10@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20140908190223.GM74274@mx1.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20140908190223.GM74274@mx1.yitter.info>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [128.230.182.82]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52, 1.0.27, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-09-08_04:2014-09-08,2014-09-08,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1409080163
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/4LT1es3pFfsoKttK2t35dDYizys
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] What are the RIRs doing?
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: <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: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 19:31:44 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Doesn't read that way to me.  When I followed that URI, I got to a page that
> says this:
> […]
> > In preparation for this session, the APNIC Secretariat has prepared a
> > draft proposal (below) containing some points which the IP addressing
> > community may want to see represented in a transition plan.

If you are convening an open process, you don't start it out with the "house proposal," in which a bunch of guys have decided behind the scenes what they want the outcome to be, and make it the reference point for all future discussion. That is advocacy, not convening.

Let's say the ICG in its RFP had provided a "draft proposal" telling the three operational communities what it thinks would be good for them to propose. You would have no problem with that? 

Or suppose the GNSO, in chartering its Cross-Community Working Group for the IANA transition, had appended a "draft proposal" which it wanted to use as the starting point for discussion. Wouldn't that take 90% of the initiative away from the relevant community and put it in the hands of the small group drafting the charter? Wouldn't it completely defeat the purpose of the 

That seems to be exactly what is happening here. I see no preparation for real deliberations, no development of an opportunity for people to prepare and discuss alternatives. Instead, I see the "leaders" i.e., managers and owners of the existing RIRs, deciding in advance that they think is best, and using their control of the process to ensure that their preferences will prevail. 

ICANN tried that at first with the preparations for the ICG, proposing a skewed process and a prejudiced scoping document. It was laughed out of town, and quickly corrected itself. Let's hope the RIRs and IETF have the same good sense. 

Milton L Mueller
Laura J and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/