Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

"Leslie Daigle" <> Fri, 02 October 2015 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B641B31A6 for <>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.156
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SL31OK86GnnA for <>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6D41A8A5A for <>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2CB82005D901; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=from:to :subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;; bh=V AGjcrEIiFL1CFFe8LRLfcmPxtg=; b=jW/Yr5KnQHJp7tsqt9Lci6ZPiZ8IDDJ6z iEKO7rt6eb/ZAdPzzzzzyNvDHN8pifyTv5xlLqrXP8QF9huOqkOV8FfpmYvJCfog bFBuonhP6566ul0CO4vWr7OszrxWAzxwh5nNPhZpNk7T9tczT91ZvmjtO0wcPPDC 9ms/eeopmA=
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E98F2005D82D; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Leslie Daigle" <>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 18:31:13 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5141)
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: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 22:31:18 -0000

At this point, I’m simply going to observe that the WG does not seem 
to raise any objection to the statement that informal coordination 
exists today and will continue, which is consistent with the commitment 
requested by the ICG:

“The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation 
as needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the 
Internet. A number of comments were concerned that the three IANA 
functions could end up being carried out by different operators and 
suggested that there was a need for some information exchange and 
coordination between the operational communities to ensure a proper 
understanding of the impact a change might have on the operation of the 
other functions (perhaps because of interdependencies between the 
functions or because of shared resources or key staff). This information 
exchange might also help in coordinating action in the case of remedying 
operational difficulties. For this to work, the three operational 
communities need to commit to coordinating and cooperating as necessary 
when changing operator, whether by leveraging existing coordination 
mechanisms or new ones.  Can the protocol parameters operational 
community provide such a commitment? “



Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
On 29 Sep 2015, at 14:00, Russ Housley wrote:

> 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 
>  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
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list