Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 02 October 2015 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 42ED51A8AC5 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:39:25 -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 o7v7O9YdPz0f for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x236.google.com (mail-qg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::236]) (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 B59151A8A99 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgev79 with SMTP id v79so107122963qge.0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:39:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=o8wFv8XhYmG8Ziduh6UCv5sVlew8nKdsCnso1Dh6oaE=; b=U881ZHQq1eJZN3T0sHavXJbI/gE/+dbqqScVr7wj2sWkEFSk5K7PTncUuDF9UBXE7L DBYnsuowTT3a4dNz0sbrTpbjRnbM99bSPGNoGbdIUzfzZq2oB5oTBb21cVGAyqYa7mCn 04FDCpMU68NzwSZIs8Uv5o9JSUTAh9T/TF4yJoiDBqRlkDSbIjNntHPgDKPNvQagL7ij jcnr0bIZfAcB3FXmwUFPhHcaYbLVsC3KXUH9O9D8P/nfW5/cqOTbYkxAsPuTMk51Fw2Z HJUlnEIV1sC+7hlusj02SsZxF2MrCOtsynO74gEjOu4mivxOrhdSr9X0VqnRRBKST1jm YIug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.129.22 with SMTP id 22mr24399608qhb.74.1443825560868; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.55.50.2 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2FE967B1-8ACD-4997-9759-986C1481ADBF@thinkingcat.com>
References: <56A1B728-98DF-409A-B2B6-2624F53FE175@cooperw.in> <3A58359B-420B-4FEC-B812-4659D980C5D3@vigilsec.com> <CAD_dc6gSKTURuXkFuay8dUKm6i+c9amEgmRQ_-Y37C_hv5i45Q@mail.gmail.com> <20150929151542.GB86614@mx2.yitter.info> <560AC921.4090700@gih.com> <D838CBAB-B68F-407A-9D83-8CAA745D00F9@vigilsec.com> <2FE967B1-8ACD-4997-9759-986C1481ADBF@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:39:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMC5w_c_a905sXtbOHkYDY+zj2adSX_ikKxivTwgFt+sBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11354d5cac7298052126d595
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/WG0MsJ2sCUCmhh5BTBh1kKIsuV8>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
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: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 22:39:25 -0000

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>;
wrote:

>
> At this point, I’m simply going to observe that the WG does not seem to
> raise any objection to the statement that informal coordination exists
> today and will continue,


​I think that is appropriate, and I believe that you could point to this
text of Section 6 of the existing draft:

   The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the
   RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen
   issues that might arise as a result of other changes.

as consensus text supporting the assertion that we engage in informal
coordination.  Your observation that the WG does not raised any objection
to the statement that informal coordination exists today will continue can
follow that.

regards,

TEd



> which is consistent with the commitment requested by the ICG:
>
> “The three operational communities have a long history of cooperation as
> needed to help ensure the smooth functioning of the DNS and the Internet. A
> number of comments were concerned that the three IANA functions could end
> up being carried out by different operators and suggested that there was a
> need for some information exchange and coordination between the operational
> communities to ensure a proper understanding of the impact a change might
> have on the operation of the other functions (perhaps because of
> interdependencies between the functions or because of shared resources or
> key staff). This information exchange might also help in coordinating
> action in the case of remedying operational difficulties. For this to work,
> the three operational communities need to commit to coordinating and
> cooperating as necessary when changing operator, whether by leveraging
> existing coordination mechanisms or new ones.  Can the protocol parameters
> operational community provide such a commitment? “
>
>
> Leslie.
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 29 Sep 2015, at 14:00, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> Olivier:
>>
>> On 29/09/2015 16:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am therefore not convinced even a little bit that additional formal
>>>> commitments, rules, processes, or anything of that sort, are
>>>> advisable.  The goal is to make the Internet better, not to achieve a
>>>> nicely designed process.  As the WG (and, in other contexts, the IAB)
>>>> said, the appoach we're using today (which is mostly informal) is
>>>> working well.  There is no reason to invent new ways of ensuring that
>>>> communication when the communication now flows without such
>>>> inventions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I understand the reticence in "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". The
>>> recommendation was made by several entities, including the ALAC. We were
>>> concerned that whilst today there appears to be several informal
>>> channels, the future might not keep it this way. So we felt that it
>>> would be a good idea to keep at least a formal channel open so that we
>>> don't end up with one operational community deciding to split without
>>> finding a way to keep the three functions operated by the same IANA
>>> functions operator.
>>>
>>
>> Please take a look at the comments from the IAB to the ICG (see
>> https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-comments-on-icg-proposal/).
>> This part is especially relevant here:
>>
>> Informal and loosely-coupled coordination
>> has worked well in the past, and it produced the coherent ICG proposal
>> without formal liaisons among the communities.  We believe that this web
>> of relationships is a strong expression of the multistakeholder model,
>> and that there is no need to concentrate these relationships within new
>> ICANN structures.  The IAB does not oppose additional formal links in
>> principle if they are found to be useful in the future, and we believe
>> we have all of the necessary mechanisms for adding them.  In general,
>> however, we prefer informal coordination and communication among the
>> communities, and we generally prefer to avoid creating additional
>> organizational structures.  We believe this organizational model
>> reflects the way the Internet works.
>>
>> I'd see it as an opportunity to enhance collaboration between
>>> operational communities. As individuals we are not immortal. I have no
>>> idea what the next generations will be like and whether this collegial
>>> collaboration will continue.
>>>
>>
>> The operational communities need to have informal communication among
>> themseleves whether they share the same IANA functions operator or not.
>>
>> To me, the best response to the ICG is that informal coordination existed
>> today and we will continue it in the future.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>