Re: [Ianaplan] Our impossible job, was Where we're at/going forward

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 27 August 2015 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 781551A1B82 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 YSJ-qM4s5tu9 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8178C1B3BF8 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1ZV0eq-00091W-9C; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:08:12 -0400
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:08:07 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <0C40133BEC788DB1EC7CA935@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <55DF25C3.2090007@cisco.com>
References: <20150825214212.60865.qmail@ary.lan> <55DD72CE.40403@cisco.com> <9DF9275062A9D2D50F1FD1C4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <55DF25C3.2090007@cisco.com>
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-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/MmCLEybV3e9lmnBJvrwsNbM8-J8>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Our impossible job, was Where we're at/going forward
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: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:08:53 -0000


--On Thursday, August 27, 2015 16:59 +0200 Eliot Lear
<lear@cisco.com>; wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> Skipping down...
>...
 
> I would say that where we split hairs, if you can call it
> that, is that I view the alternatives as far worse.  As I've
> said, this is a risk analysis.  But on to the meat of the
> matter...

Letting the elephant in the room out and turning it loose, the
bottom line may be that different of us appraise the ICANN
situation differently, weigh the factors of the risk analysis
differently, make different projections about how the ICANN
community might behave under stress, etc.  Reasonable people can
differ on those points and I'm not convinced that more traffic,
especially as long as we continue to be circumspect about the
details of our various case analyses and scenarios, will help
convince anyone.

Perhaps as part of that, but perhaps as an independent issue, I
apparently assess the alternatives differently than you do.  As
as result, I don't think a "far worse" conclusion is justified
although I see risks either way.  I don't know how relevant it
is today, but I note that, in the ICANN formation period, there
were several governments whose public position was that US
Government involvement (usually spelled "control") was
unacceptable but whose private one was closer to "all of the
other obvious alternatives are likely to be worse").

Because of those differences and the expectation that we are not
likely to persuade each other -- especially when neither of us
seems anxious to go into details about our analyses and the
information and sources on which they are based -- my preference
is that any formal WG comment focus on what the WG actually
knows and has discussed rather than our various risk analyses
and their interpretations, speculation on scenarios, etc.

  best,
   john