Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 24 August 2015 15:04 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 76DB21A0074 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.101
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 ppfmQyoMXDWd for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa3.jck.com (static-65-175-133-137.cpe.metrocast.net [65.175.133.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 755C81A03F9 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp5.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.153] helo=JcK-HP5.jck.com) by bsa3.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1ZTtHu-000OGa-JG; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:03:54 -0400
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:03:49 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <67A84970F8E81F9CA1E2F211@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150824015015.GF21433@mx2.yitter.info>
References: <95236452-2600-473E-B326-8AB8242484B4@thinkingcat.com> <018901d0dc22$4efb3870$ecf1a950$@ch> <BAB634F7-2429-4C09-AAAF-96D47C78EB51@thinkingcat.com> <01a801d0dc24$531bab40$f95301c0$@ch> <55D74BF9.2090901@cisco.com> <020001d0dc2c$b5514ba0$1ff3e2e0$@ch> <20150824015015.GF21433@mx2.yitter.info>
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
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/OdI2-75NqcGCPbz65SYW4UbxPzA>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
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, 24 Aug 2015 15:04:06 -0000

Andrew,

It is possible to agree with you (which I do) and at least
partially still with Richard.  Inline below...

--On Sunday, August 23, 2015 9:50 PM -0400 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 06:16:15PM +0200, Richard Hill wrote:
>> The problem is that by supporting the entire proposal you are
>> also taking a position on the names and addressing proposals.
>> And it seems to me that that goes beyond the mandate of this
>> group.

> Just on the "mandate" issue (i.e. without respect to the
> merits of the argument Richard is advancing), I want to note
> that such a position in my reading _is_ in the charter of the
> WG:
> 
>   Should proposals made by other communities regarding the
> transition   of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol
> parameter   registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and
> comment on them.

The key distinguishing phrase in trying to understand and agree
with both of you is "transition of other IANA functions".  To
the extent to which there are things in the proposal, presumably
originating from CCWG work, that are connected to the overall
functioning of ICANN, not the IANA transition, they are only
marginally within the scope of the WG.  In the interest of
providing maximum information to ICG and the broader community,
I think the boundary should be interpreted broadly and
generously, but the fact remains that the WG has not discussed
ICANN's organizational structure or role in the Internet
community, has not been asked to do so, and that moving in that
direction would be a major step at this point.

That distinction is much less important for Richard's comments,
which seem to me to be on-target independent of the questions
about scope and more important vis-a-vis some other comments
that seem to go even beyond ICANN structure and role and into
questions about how the Internet works.  The latter are, IMO
fairly clearly, out of scope for the WG and it may be time for
the co-chairs for consider revocation of ranting rights.

In particular,...

> It's a little late, but IMO this was always part of the work.
> The failure of the whole ICG proposal clearly would affect the
> IETF and its registries, so I cannot see a way in which this
> isn't WG chartered work.

While I certainly hope it doesn't fail, I think our assumption
all along has been that, if the transition activity fails, we
still have agreements with ICANN to perform the functions we
need and backing from the NTIA for those agreements.  So the
effect to which you occur might be expected to be very limited.
The impact on the Internet as a whole, and the various "Internet
governance" dynamics, might be much more significant but it is
not at all clear to me that those are within the WG's scope.

best,
   john
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A (as usual, for myself)