Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?

Seth Johnson <> Mon, 19 October 2015 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6E61A90DE for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eOSPmyCCFhP3 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C8341A90AC for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkca6 with SMTP id a6so16031433qkc.3 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=GB2MVT253k4RtgYmN1J+/g9g9bm8FMQuLXusm0dKypk=; b=XgZjutfzgrtBvNk8jpy/lTjoGtH4/364rCd7gclQPpubrj05mVh7xzpxm255aOEFsB dQDGE+KFpSvMzBWwUkEOn+fBwu0vbcvRGey4Uv/WJ50qx887NKvlCgf+LixXJOsM/pBh RoCLqppzDBc3FbMVUO75NMLqJCTPDhwbpDcoCBj0hg6OM3S6DGNX83gvPjicL24x0IYl RaROJgOxpj+8HC7UIuYWX1opqeoQLkfja1jFxKTZOZMVpdZn5falb8GaDtazf1rNcQIJ Huz8y8KqC9wNSFFgkpR0i9V42a6LNn+MMFeaHm9BSzLqaqLV29H/3k6vguQLqkpyzIRH V+xw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id x10mr22371798qkx.45.1445285414830; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20151019183240.61852.qmail@ary.lan> <>
From: Seth Johnson <>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:09:35 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>, John Levine <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 20:10:17 -0000

Exactly proscribed.  Even stronger would be appropriate.  An absolute
limit.  That's how the foundation works.  You have to have really
"interesting" exceptions for the government to go there.  Really.  We
don't have fundamental rights that act as a trump card on the
government just because we all agree on and like the idea.  No -- we
have them because the framework is set up solid.  As -- absolutely --
a direct proscription on the government.  That what constitutional
acts are.  Really.


On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, John C Klensin <>; wrote:
> --On Monday, October 19, 2015 18:32 +0000 John Levine
> <>; wrote:
>>> The "more technical" areas have had the ability to operate in
>>> that way because they are in a stewardship context where
>>> governmental inroads have been proscribed.
>> You keep saying this.  Could you provide a pointer to the
>> relevant section of the law, please?
> John, thanks.
> Seth, at best, "proscribed" is a little strong.  It was made
> very clear during the organization/creation of ICANN that the US
> Govt could (and would) intervene in the protocol and numbering
> areas if they felt a need to do that.  One can attribute their
> very light hand in those areas to any of their perception that
> things are working well, that the serious and high-visibility
> politics lie closer to domain name, that the disagreements about
> success criteria I mentioned earlier have impacts in this area
> as well, that the ICANN and its staff have been more active and
> interventionist in the names area and hence require more
> supervision, that John's comments about where the money flows
> are relevant, and perhaps other reasons.  It is clear that there
> have been very few direct or indirect government interventions
> in recent years in the protocol parameter and numbering areas,
> but, despite all the noise, there haven't been many
> interventions in the names area either.
> But "proscribed"? I don't think so and, like John, I'd like to
> see citations of law or anything else of substance.
>     john