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
- [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Dave Crocker
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? John C Klensin
- [Ianaplan] I CAN NAB THE NET [was : What's happen… JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Eric Brunner-Williams
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Jefsey
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Soininen, Jonne (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Avri Doria
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Bob Hinden
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Avri Doria
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? John Levine
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? John C Klensin
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? John Levine
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? John C Klensin
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Eric Brunner-Williams
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson
- Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN? Seth Johnson