Re: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus

John C Klensin <> Wed, 26 August 2015 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9382C1A711A for <>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UYnpZ8htJG70 for <>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A039E1A6F1F for <>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZUcvg-0005PJ-Ny; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:48:00 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:47:55 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:48:03 -0000

Sorry... forgot to explicitly add one comment about why these
distinctions are important.   I believe that the present
situation allows the WG, and maybe even the IETF, to endorse the
proposal as far as effects on the protocol registries are
concerned, express general support and comment on
non-interference without endorsement for the other elements of
the proposal, and to not have to get involved with decisions
about endorsement of the multistakeholder model (your
definition, the observable practice around ICANN, or other
definitions) at all.   I think that is highly desirable, if only
because I think the level of IETF consensus probably goes down
as one goes further down that list.


--On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:00 -0400 John C Klensin
<> wrote:

> That is, IMO, particularly important when "multistakeholder
> model" becomes a goal rather than a description of a process.
> In the ISO world, the phrase "materially concerned party" is
> often used and I personally wish the ICANN-related (and
> "Internet governance"-related) criteria had found an
> expression closer to that.  "Multistakeholder" should,
> arguably, mean the same thing, but seems in practice to
> include a lot of parties whose are less involved; have, as the
> saying used to go, far less "skin in the game" of a
> well-working Internet; who are interested in disrupting the
> current model and discussions in favor or an entirely
> different vision; who see these discussions and the entire
> "governance" discussion as an opportunity to test or
> demonstrate theories about non-governmental world governance
> or other personal theories; or who, in the words of a
> prominent ICANN staff member, just have too much time on their
> hands.   Put differently, it is sometimes hard to
> differentiate between a constructive and Internet-focused
> multistakeholder model and a leaderless and unfocused mob each
> of whose members have managed to find a large pointed object
> somewhere.
> Until and unless something changes in that version of the
> "multi-stakeholder model of governance", standing together to
> defend it may not only be impossible but undesirable.