Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 01 September 2014 08:41 UTC
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 BAB541A01AF for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 01:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.559
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 ZoHsoaiOs_ev for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 01:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62AA51A024C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 01:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (unknown [81.213.20.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CC0D8A031 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 08:41:44 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 11:41:38 +0300
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140901084137.GA92502@crankycanuck.ca>
References: <54017E09.8060504@cisco.com> <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEEACKAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEEACKAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/BLmNwjopJJ0xhujkV2Bih9WriXQ
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
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, 01 Sep 2014 08:41:47 -0000
Hi, On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 03:29:34PM +0200, Richard Hill wrote: > > I think that it would be better to include the full mandate, and to say: "In that announcement, NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to establish a process to deliver a proposal to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community." > What does that add? In particular, that suggests that the only think NTIA was interested in was domain name functions, in which case the protocol parameters registry would be irrelevant. But we cannot possibly read it that narrowly, of course, since the protocol parameters are also in some sense covered by the NTIA-ICANN agreement. > function is the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which acts > on behalf of the numerous implementers that use specific parameter > values." I would be strongly opposed to such a change. The IETF does not act "on behalf" of anyone. We are not a representative body. The IETF acts for itself. > 4) Related to the above, should consideration be given to adding a > proper dispute resolution clause, that is, including choice of law > and venue, to the agreement? For example, that the venue for any > disputes would be the seat of ISOC, which is the legal entity > involved from the IETF side. This suggests that the IETF's responsibility for these protocol parameters should be submitted to some other body for arbitration. I don't think that's correct. > 6) In section 2, part IV, under "Transition Implications", the IETF response is "No structural changes are required." This is correct, but I think that some contractual changes are required in order to make it clear that the ultimate authority for the protocol parameters is IETF, not ICANN. > > "At present, article I.1 of the ICANN Bylaws implies that ICANN has > the overall responsibility for the coordination and allocation and > assignment of the protocol parameters. I don't read the Bylaws that way, and I don't think it's a plausible interpretation. The text says, "Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet," which does not imply overall responsibility for the allocation at all. Overall responsibility is for co-ordination, which is, in my view, exactly right. > 7) There was extensive discussion (but no agreement) on the IANA > Transition mailing list regarding whether or not the fact that a US > court could, in theory, order ICANN/IANA to do something contrary to > agreed community policies is an issue Yes, of course. US (and other countries') courts make bad rulings all the time. I don't think that the correct question is, "Is this an issue?" The correct question is whether it is an issue worth dealing with in advance, particularly since it is hard ot know exactly how we ought to deal with it. In my view, the answer is, "No." I think there is at least as great a threat from creating another new large bureaucracy as there is from some court issuing a bad decision that affects us in an important way. -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
- [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review David Conrad
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Leslie Daigle (TCE)
- [Ianaplan] How to handle "customer" text and orde… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Justine Lera
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Avri Doria
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review David Conrad
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review David Conrad
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review David Conrad
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Marc Blanchet
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review David Conrad
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Avri Doria
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review - more (po… John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review JFC Morfin