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

Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Mon, 19 October 2015 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
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 30DDF1B2D90 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] 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 DTW2XMi9STLJ for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from abenaki.wabanaki.net (nike.wampumpeag.net [67.42.198.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 624521B2D86 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frog.local ([67.42.198.93]) by abenaki.wabanaki.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id t9JM9Xwc035035 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:09:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net)
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <20151019183240.61852.qmail@ary.lan> <A70F3A9F3FB05C0F84CBD7CB@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Message-ID: <56256A1D.6010905@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:09:33 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A70F3A9F3FB05C0F84CBD7CB@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Kq673IqvWhPxmNC4SRTnCgOyE-M>
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 22:09:39 -0000

John, Elliot, John, ... and other rational creatures I've known for years.

Mr. Johnson is sharing the same fine vintage on the CCWG list, waving 
fundamental rights and kings and so on at all and sundry.

I am so reminded of just how bad the domreg mail was in '98.

And the IETF protects our employers (when we have them) from anti-trust 
liabilities, which is not quite the motivation for pursuing policy goals 
in any component of ICANN, so unsurprisingly, there are differences in 
the mechanisms for review.

Eric

On 10/19/15 12:49 PM, John C Klensin 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>