Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?

Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com> Mon, 19 October 2015 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <seth.p.johnson@gmail.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 4AEE01B2B07 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 hW-1sFuORaQC for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22e.google.com (mail-qk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96CAF1B2ADD for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkca6 with SMTP id a6so12738755qkc.3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=i9vB4yLMBW14AgRS1U2/SmbF1tAW/0qzGHbLCMwcgKA=; b=nxVt7waWqC6/PAg61eD+uRIXKUaEbiwmK0hAgBDYbFREURA+fqeVpKqAtY5NmO0ceI cl+0z+aD/zRAaHLymFWiIwAbt+E/MpyCiJ1pxEGUU5F3q7q+f60dYNqA8sd6Roh4A+gi t+0yW/l/YbaRS8Etb4DoJICpbbvuWeb0YvLbsuOheOyDZAFw/fIyVSHNMn5MOkAkGKnG fbgnTAD0zAvN/hlT/t/GWhf7TF9s8c+UmVy6x5vBMPaGtlG+WL0O33pg31Q8VyoK18z7 TqFp/rlqj30O7GjXBIfoi/M1HdnY8R/e2XcOhaTFUqvxLPfTeSdri8OslQZD1+66UUKL zLLA==
X-Received: by 10.55.200.217 with SMTP id t86mr37796800qkl.33.1445278266736; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.207.72 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBzDGLMuvn9GA156wSCmRNA-q8DAdXxGubuzJSzzB7Jstg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56181181.50002@gmail.com> <D23F19BE.27A31A%Jonne.soininen@nsn.com> <561D47DD.2010704@acm.org> <CAF4+nEHDxq1fgAqdb5Kwe6cNn9uK5jS2+wnNVXRFpLY44+Y=4g@mail.gmail.com> <561E3BDD.4020502@acm.org> <C1018DCA-CEBF-4FE7-82A0-F9591CE38B79@istaff.org> <BDB816652A89FC266ED53495@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <CAJkfFBzDGLMuvn9GA156wSCmRNA-q8DAdXxGubuzJSzzB7Jstg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:10:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBy_4D_hdeX3XQfAi0fFOX60S_SgLXbm9kfBy+q56cjdCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/EgTwprUVXDnL3eYGSDIK_tx_6yQ>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?
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: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:11:16 -0000

https://twitter.com/qirtaiba/status/656155655414288384

"Sensing some anger from stakeholders at #ICANN54 that the US
government has circumvented its processes to enshrine DNS name rules
in the TPP"

:-|

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>; wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:51 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>; wrote:
>>
>> --On Sunday, October 18, 2015 7:23 AM +0100 John Curran
>> <jcurran@istaff.org>; wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 14, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>; wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> All I was trying to say was IETF had a binding appeals tracks
>>>> that ICANN does not have.
>>>
>>> Indeed.   The appeals process is rather logical, allowing for
>>> appeal regarding whether the Internet standards procedures
>>> were properly followed, and (in the  extreme case) appeal to
>>> the ISOC Trustees "only in cases in which the procedures
>>> themselves are claimed to be inadequate or insufficient to the
>>> protection of the  rights of all parties in a fair and open
>>> Internet Standards Process."
>>>
>>> Such clarity of role might be helpful in the names community
>>> processes...
>>
>> Yes, but there is another difference between IETF appeals and
>> most of what has been contemplated for ICANN.  The IETF process
>> is designed to force what other bodies call "reconsideration".
>> The IESG is told to take another look and the IAB's maximum
>> authority in most scenarios is to tell the IESG to look again
>> and consider a specific set of issues.  The ISOC Trustees have
>> more power to actually make changes and final decisions (at
>> least the way some of us read the spec) but we have no actual
>> experience with the use of that part of the model to conclusion
>> in the 19 years since the ISOC BoT provision was introduced in
>> RFC 2026.
>>
>> The proposed ICANN model seems to be much more focused on
>> adjudication by higher authorities, which was considered
>> inappropriate for the IETF, in part because community consensus
>> is very hard to measure in controversial situations.  One
>> reading of the CCWG proposal is that they propose to solve that
>> problem by the time-honored position of declaring themselves
>> (pre-captured by part of the community) to be in charge and
>> representing everyone else.
>>
>> Another difference is connected to the reason I think that,
>> while ICANN procedures can draw inspiration from IETF ones,
>> almost all further analogies do not work.  In the IETF, at least
>> partially because of the technical underpinnings of much of our
>> work, there is general agreement on criteria by which success
>> can be judged.  It is only when we start adjusting our own
>> procedures to reflect social norms (e.g., recent anti-harassment
>> and perhaps privacy discussions) that consensus about success
>> criteria start breaking down.
>
>
> Not to make a habit of this, but I want to make the following comments
> once again in response here:
>
> The "more technical" areas have had the ability to operate in that way
> because they are in a stewardship context where governmental inroads
> have been proscribed.
>
> - and -
>
> As soon as the intergovernmental frame is in place and our own
> governments choose to lay claim to that legal basis, it will "simply
> apply," and you won't be in any sort of position to stand against
> intergovernmental [policy authority] (which is not subject to the same
> limits).
>
> I'll also say I sort of agree that the NTIA did not "ask the right
> questions" -- or more precisely, didn't frame the problem right.  And
> we haven't improved the defect -- the CCWG-Accountability stress test
> exercise completely fails to characterize the nature of the transition
> and therefore the nature of the problem.
>
>
> Seth
>
>
>> By contrast, disagreements about
>> what are ultimately success criteria are the norm in ICANN,
>> especially in names-related areas.  Is it better to block a
>> potentially-risky identifier or to allow it in the interest of
>> competition and "what someone wants to do"?   Is it better to
>> use the DNS's administratively distributed hierarchy to allow
>> (or even encourage) localization and diversity or to force
>> uniform rules to reduce the risks inherent in user confusion?
>> Is it better to keep the root zone small, perhaps thereby
>> encouraging deep hierarchy, or to make a very broad root in the
>> interest of competition (or greater profits)?  None of those
>> questions have completely objective answers; one has to start
>> with a particular perspective and set of preferences and then
>> try to reason from it.
>>
>> Similarly, if the IETF community becomes sufficiently concerned
>> about the behavior or performance of an individual or group of
>> individuals, we have a recall procedure.  Again, it has not been
>> fully carried out to the point of removing someone in circa 20
>> years.  The only time we ever came close involved absence and
>> non-performance, not malfeasance or ignoring the clear will of
>> the community.  In addition, out of fear of DoS attacks and
>> frivolous actions, we have made that procedure nearly impossible
>> to use, again evidenced by our failure to use it in even some
>> fairly egregious cases.  One can imagine, given the frequency
>> with which disputes arise, various dispute resolution procedures
>> are applied that leave almost no one happy. and almost as
>> frequent debates about whether "bottom up" (however narrow or
>> captured the bottom) means that the Board is obligated to accept
>> whatever comes to it or whether it is a final source for
>> consideration of cross-ICANN-community (or broader Internet
>> community) issues, much as the IESG is expected to encourage and
>> enforce cross-area review.  That set of differences, especially
>> coupled with recent ICANN history, suggests that a Board that
>> actually tried to exercise judgment and  consideration of broad
>> community needs and tradeoffs would be removed frequently if
>> procedures made that easy (as the CCWG recommendations appear to
>> do).
>>
>> Back to lurking... and wondering whether we (and maybe NTIA) are
>> asking the wrong questions.
>>
>>    best,
>>      john
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan