Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Tue, 04 November 2014 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
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 3AB411ACF66 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 13:08:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 l1lZTxjUf6tj for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 13:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01731A00EA for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 13:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE7CCC10F for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:07:59 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 0KAHfFDhJgfh for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:07:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from new-host-3.home (pool-96-237-159-213.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [96.237.159.213]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4384FCC10D for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:07:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <54594029.30603@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:07:53 -0500
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0 SeaMonkey/2.30
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMENGCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <5458C4C3.6050605@meetinghouse.net> <D07E3874.135E9F%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <54592D96.8040807@gmail.com> <54593423.4010507@meetinghouse.net> <20141104205232.GK29755@mx1.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20141104205232.GK29755@mx1.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/YqLWZxX4mmsr2Qs2jlR8Qmkzkmw
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:08:03 -0000

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 03:16:35PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> that the IETF needs to step up, and assert itself, and assume the
>> responsibilities that go with being the standards body it purports to be.
>>
> Oy, the Boss of Internetz again.  The IETF does in fact assume the
> responsibilities of being that standards body.  The responsibilities
> are entirely in the realm of making standards that people can actually
> use, rather than standards that ensure continued existence of a paid
> bureaucracy.

Generally, part of the responsibility that goes with being a standards 
body goes beyond simply promulgating "good standards."

In many cases, that includes things like compliance testing (something 
that, IMHO, the IETF and the Internet community rather fall down on).

In the case of many Internet standards, responsibilities include 
definition and oversight of registries - and the whole point of the NTIA 
transition is to define that oversight in a post-NTIA world. Isn't that 
the whole point of including accountability and transition clauses in 
the MoU and the proposal we're working on?

And, if so, accountability has to include "teeth" to enforce things.

Somehow, this "oh, if ICANN doesn't do the job, we'll take our ball and 
move it elsewhere" seems a rather timid attitude and approach.
>
> This "actually used" criterion is the _exact_ reason I keep saying
> that control over iana.org isn't something worth trying to get,
> because it cannot make any difference to future action.  If in the
> event of a registry split there is co-operation, the pointer will be
> there.  If there is controversy, we'll have to do an emergency
> transition anyway.
>
> Every time I say that, someone says, "Well, in the event of a
> controversial split, having a contract term will put you in a better
> legal position," as though that is any kind of help.  In the case of
> such a split, we will need to put up a new registry at a new URI
> immediately, while the legal situation works itself out.  Having done
> that, what possible utility will there be in going back?

Why should we put ourselves in that position?  If we have the authority 
to cancel the MoU, why not assert the authority to take back full 
control of the registries when doing so?
>
> This isn't being wishy-washy.  It's being clear-eyed and cold about
> what _actually_ would be important in the event of a controversial
> split.  Keeping a trademark will be among the very least of our
> worries, and I think focussing on it is focussing on the form rather
> than the content.
>
>

It's one detail among many.  In contracts, as with protocol specs, the 
devil is in the details.

Miles Fidelman



-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra