Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 3, 2014, at 6:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ...
> In general, I think foundational arguments in this area are likely to
> get us into a dark and very wet swamp.  It seems to me that we need to
> concentrate on what outcome we want ("stuff stays the same"), and what
> to do in case things fall apart.  "Stay the same" requires, as far as
> I can tell, that we not try to negotiate for things we're unlikely to
> get, because once you start negotiating you have to decide what things
> you're willing to give up, and I think we don't want to give things up
> because we like the way things are.  This means we need a different
> plan for what to do in case things fall apart.

I've been trying to stay out of this particular thread, but feel compelled
to respond to the above in light of how far astray it is from the task 
now underway.

I am not certain that "negotiation" is a constructive way to look at this 
problem space.  The ICG team needs to generate a single proposal to go to 
NTIA, and said proposal should address any issues that might arise with 
the transition of the stewardship for the IANA functions.

If the IETF feels that there are no issues with respect to the IANA marks 
and domain name, then it doesn't need to raise the issue (and as per charter, 
should do the minimum possible and not mention it.)  This presumes that the 
IETF is satisfied with any possible outcome with respect to the marks and 
domain name, i.e. that there is no issue with respect to them during an 
IANA stewardship transition.

If the IETF feels that there is a potential issue with respect to the marks 
and domain name during a stewardship transition from NTIA or with respect to 
any potential future IANA operator transition, then it should be mentioned 
in the IETF submission to the ICG.  If nothing else, the present shared usage 
of the marks and domain should be noted in the response as an existing working 
arrangement under "Section II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements"

If the IETF feels that there is a potential issue, and furthermore that it 
has a preferred solution to that issue, then it should not only mention the 
issue, but note its _preferred_ solution.  That's not an ultimatum, but simply 
an expression of one or more possible solutions to the issue.

None of this involves negotiation, posturing, or planning for failure; it is
simply be fulfilling the request by the ICG to provide complete responses -
if the IETF feels there is a potential issue with the present arrangements
in this area post-transition, then it is my understanding that the IETF 
is obligated to at least note the existing working arrangement in its RFP 
response to the ICG.

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.