Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sun, 23 August 2015 15:57 UTC
Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.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 07CCD1ACEEF for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 9_EYPPDpxEkQ for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com (mail-ob0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75CFB1ACEED for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbhe7 with SMTP id he7so94571850obb.0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=qeRRl0wKZ/8Eie+wqOK1VDrO8GP8I41zgLf3WfYx0Us=; b=kW+cV05a6g3gRo2IgATO+CSHP2+fS105rmIM6teH/zczv3WtQnwcEWwTABcZxR74hr EFinFB1Nhv2Hc+ImxHczkLLAA/SKvXFmji9iMRSFBgO77eBzDr4ueU4+GvmXOY9EU/Wt 0TPhTSHBGWpMODFr+mgG3OcG6iIjSo1pbwYFNm5yqszXRcx9YYb/KB5P/S5yLwW/nVvP 7Dk2kRIaFFTWNhXsmdNsIecWiwGU0tUeFXONN8H+UbPoi9KmZPQzZ1OpwzMnucvSJoZw BIRuMpANGUSL9AY3fWmiZ386UCToQSWI6WouNJtR6ec3dZRHXQ93TldlOu58O4unPomz 8Dqg==
X-Received: by 10.182.87.69 with SMTP id v5mr16704972obz.37.1440345439865; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.35.136 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D3394ED976549059B1694F5B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
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> <D3394ED976549059B1694F5B@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:56:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6iPTpAYnZqQ-N9dwMY0QNwk51VsoEfBj=xAOvQ1inmCug@mail.gmail.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013cb8324c1051051dfc8ef1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/PLTDYfjz5fOAmqsesqwp_lfPy70>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>, "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 15:57:24 -0000
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:45 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > > > --On Friday, August 21, 2015 18:16 +0200 Richard Hill > <rhill@hill-a.ch> 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. > > Richard, > > I've been traveling for the last week or two and haven't read > the various discussions during that period carefully. But I > think I disagree with your statement above. Breaking this > down, it seems to me that it must be acceptable for the IETF to > say: > > (i) We have read the complete proposal and conclude that it > addresses our specific issues and concerns, stated earlier, in > an acceptable way. > > (ii) While we see a variety of ways in which assorted other > issues could be worked out and specified, that list and the > choices about them in the current proposal appear to us to not > pose a risk to the things we've identified as important. > Consequently, as the good members of a broader community that we > aspire to be, we are supportive of those things simply because > the other communities want them and they don't seem to pose a > problem or challenge for us. > I will add my +1 to a statement similar to above. Although i was also informed offlist(unofficially) that IAB may be addressing the proposal in a brother sense than the IETF so maybe thats where the detailed response will come from. Cheers! > > Now, that is, I believe, more or less what Eliot is suggesting. > It doesn't mean we would be willing to spill blood (especially > IETF blood) to make sure that the proposals from the names and > addresses groups are adopted, but we can still support them as > consistent and non-harmful. > > I don't see why you consider such a pair of statements, in that > form or another one, a problem. > > Now, whether the IETF actually believes in those statements is > another matter. I've concluded personally that I do not, but I > think it is quite likely that I'm "in the rough" on these > issues. In particular: > > (1) ICANN and its many non-IANA roles (some of which I agree > with, others I don't) have become extremely large and complex. > Consequently, I think it is important to distinguish provisions > in this proposal (and elsewhere) that are directly related to > IANA, the US Government role under the current arrangements, and > the transition of that role (either eliminating it or replacing > it with some other arrangement) from provisions whose purpose is > to improve those other ICANN functions. Those other provisions > might change how those ICANN functions are carried out, > controlled, or managed, or protect against abuse of or due to > those functions. I personally wish that the proposal would be > rejected by the ICG and the various communities until the > extraneous "let's fix ICANN" elements --including all > reflections of desires to make ICANN the focus of questions > about how to "govern" the Internet or to use ICANN or the > Internet more generally to test assorted interesting > sociopolitical or organizational theories -- were removed. > > (2) I think the broader Internet community, or at least the > IETF, should be working to insure that IANA operations are > adequately responsible to the relevant customer groups _and_ > that the IANA function is accountable to the Internet community. > I've expressed this concern earlier but gotten no improvements > as a result, however, I see the PTI model as potentially (but > only potentially) improving accountability for a small number of > communities, some of them with significant vested economic or > equivalent interests, at the price of reducing accountability to > the Internet at large and maybe even the other customer groups. > I don't see that as an improvement, regardless of its other real > or imaginary organizational benefits (see comment about > theory-testing above). > > (3) Whatever one might say about the NTIA role (and that of the > US Government more generally), how it has been applied, and, > perhaps most important in practice, the horrible optics > associated with it, the fact remains that it has provided an > important independent mechanism for both moderating possible bad > behavior on ICANN's part and for appeals that lie completely > outside ICANN's ability to design and define the procedures and > to appoint those who will consider the specifics of particular > cases. Sometimes just having such external mechanisms is > important. They inhibit bad behavior because of the possibility > of intervention if things get bad enough. Equally or more > important, if one were worried about capture by a collection of > stakeholders who are not fully representative of the Internet > community, the odds that NTIA could be captured by that same > collection of stakeholders are vanishingly small. > > A key part of the issue here is that "multistakeholder" has, > many times in this context, come to mean "anyone with an > opinion, regardless of knowledge or actual material concern and > involvement with the substantive issues". That is very much > different from IETF values and traditions: we tend (and try) to > value knowledge, experience, and actual involvement with the > subject matter over what we evaluate as wild theorizing. That > particular version of "multistakeholder", especially in its > ICANN incarnation, tends to give great power to factions with > the interest and resources to make seemingly-unlimited > investments in the process. That doesn't require malfeasance, > only the ability to create many committees, meetings, and long > and complex documents until no one other than those particular > interested and invested parties (and those subsidized by ICANN) > can afford to participate in practice. > > To transition away from having the US Government in the > oversight and appeal (whether from the broad community or from > governments via diplomatic channels) role described above > requires that one either have a separate oversight and appeal > mechanism that is similar to the NTIA one in not being under > control of ICANN or any constituency that might capture or > dominate ICANN decision making... or one must have complete > trust that ICANN cannot be captured, has conflict of interest > policies that protect against decisions being dominated by a > single self-interested party or cluster of them, and that it > will always (now and in the future) act in the best interests of > the Internet, even when those interests conflict with the > organizational best interests of ICANN as an organization. > Absent that level of trust, "independent" review mechanisms > created by ICANN don't do the job because ICANN can control the > criteria for appointments, the working procedures, and, > ultimately, the membership of those bodies whether the criteria > are satisfied or not. Sadly, I don't have that level of trust, > if only because ICANN has, even in the last few years, > repeatedly provided examples that contradict it. > > It seems clear to me that most of that latter group of concerns > are out of scope for IANAPlan, although not necessarily so for > the IETF and IAB. I hope that various of us who do have them > will comment more generally on the process and situation and, if > necessary, on any public call for comment that NTIA and other > institutions may produce in the future. > > best, > john > > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
- [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for ICG p… Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Richard Hill
- [Ianaplan] Please keep context in mind Re: Consen… Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Marc Blanchet
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… John C Klensin
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… John C Klensin
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus call -- text reply for I… John C Klensin