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

Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com> Mon, 19 October 2015 20:12 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 B915F1A90E7 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:12:28 -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 ZvvBdsXnehqU for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22e.google.com (mail-qg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::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 E4EF21A90D8 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgbb65 with SMTP id b65so63485135qgb.2 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:12:16 -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=XD5hJDPwl3lHDkKJ5/CY3/QlSNk5QW0ucwC7a/PC5Ro=; b=s22XEwbQW0Qb4zSoaCN0eAxrhMCmEisTlRFu7Nl5vo33h9e84IpRIGlTLWxd4INt4a zWfbv6Dr/TGMQO4GYemiPG/R10xG5egt9Mx20V7/BHeQZ2+y6vfnpVdjM+kYB632NObl dYleWo2YeTYVxrO6qmt58R0R8mKng5gae/Fn5Tl/aJLo8tQc75phlSZfo3KCC8vrnX2I NNeC1/d61/bKLpXgbJDKbzA1F1Oulpf3izs35QLFYXHS4wgAgFRrOm1BhsGrpqXqP89M qWzf5leqnZxMrRpBTRY9w9M9sT9LaiXjuOKGDFC2O884dgeNZCjgrWio1W87cyMJhMaV L7wA==
X-Received: by 10.140.99.49 with SMTP id p46mr37611090qge.76.1445285536103; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.207.72 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A70F3A9F3FB05C0F84CBD7CB@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <20151019183240.61852.qmail@ary.lan> <A70F3A9F3FB05C0F84CBD7CB@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:11:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwUZBRnyo6Dg8s=ypVCg99HgSd-4g-iwsDv9gDJem7rgw@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/JHPZ1vMS41mi5eExhuTni0QxrkI>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
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 20:12:28 -0000

The US was probably alluding to things like what they are apparently
starting now -- meddling in these areas via international acts, where
they actually can.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>; wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, October 19, 2015 18:32 +0000 John Levine
> <johnl@taugh.com>; wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You keep saying this.  Could you provide a pointer to the
>> relevant section of the law, please?
>
> John, thanks.
>
> Seth, at best, "proscribed" is a little strong.  It was made
> very clear during the organization/creation of ICANN that the US
> Govt could (and would) intervene in the protocol and numbering
> areas if they felt a need to do that.  One can attribute their
> very light hand in those areas to any of their perception that
> things are working well, that the serious and high-visibility
> politics lie closer to domain name, that the disagreements about
> success criteria I mentioned earlier have impacts in this area
> as well, that the ICANN and its staff have been more active and
> interventionist in the names area and hence require more
> supervision, that John's comments about where the money flows
> are relevant, and perhaps other reasons.  It is clear that there
> have been very few direct or indirect government interventions
> in recent years in the protocol parameter and numbering areas,
> but, despite all the noise, there haven't been many
> interventions in the names area either.
>
> But "proscribed"? I don't think so and, like John, I'd like to
> see citations of law or anything else of substance.
>
>     john
>
>
>
>