Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On May 20, 2015, at 11:10 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Speaking again for myself only, I don't see it that way.   What

> I do see is a demonstration of a concern that a few of us have
> had for some time -- the possibility that, freed of external
> oversight, portions of the names community would make decisions
> about what is in their best interest without much regard for
> other needs or the opinions of other communities (except
> possibly in the form of the names community's opinion of what
> those communities should want and need) and then, because of the
> way ICANN is structured, impose their view on everyone else.  

John - The CWG draft was posted for public comment, and the IETF was specifically asked 
by the ICG to consider it and provide feedback on implications to the protocol community…  
As a result, it’s fairly difficult to characterize the CWG efforts as being done "without much 
regard for other needs or the opinions of other communities”   (In fact, if it were not for the 
"IAB IANA Evolution Program” filing of its comment, it would be relatively straightforward to 
characterize the IETF as the party that is the one that was not considering the needs of the 
other communities…)

The CWG plan is not a work of art, and certainly not how most of us would go about solving
their particular accountability conundrum. It is, however, the result of an enormous amount
of effort by the names community, and the IETF was not being asked to judge the rationale 
for their proposed changes (as you seem so anxious to do), but to consider the associated
implications of the changes for the protocol community and comment accordingly.   If you 
should happen to see someone from the “IAB IANA Evolution Program”, you might want to 
thank them for recognizing this and getting the actual job done (at least from the perspective
of one portion of the IETF community.)

Thanks,
/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.