Re: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Tue, 25 August 2015 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ocl@gih.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 7B26F1A007E for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 lAp9uYe8IG8d for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (salsa.gih.co.uk [IPv6:2a00:19e8:10:5::b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63D131A1BB3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1]) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A583D18F3AD; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:02:26 +0100 (BST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gih.com; h=subject :references:from:cc:to:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mahalo1; bh=SgIIssFFj uB5CCfpxRbdzEbORSI=; b=Am271cKftauK+aNohOJXjumnQUREWAioLquLQVI6F /hUF//OykcSaIRo7uIBOWu7eX8+zWz3Xe4lt44hznoEaO7yCOiZzQtp122qV7E4B p+s+4FtfEdXcbV+ils9P+eYOH5yBdDw6Djs9VwC4oqojx/hFNDs9E2nUPSXLmMeL C8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gih.com; h=subject :references:from:cc:to:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mahalo1; b=Xvb O2G+vOwWJc6mMv4ypUNG6Suni1dE1IzAAxgxzBjT/gVgyWZvbid3zrDqcx/L071R GKMqxz20DaAD8YMkQ4z1Y9kD7l4pmnPWd+u4epkD7IltlTBswJpr+S0qDyca9aP+ 9ntbChKVZlRuUaLi51s/3lTOTSHjuRPXlAA2AYaM=
Received: from [192.168.1.34] (ANice-651-1-358-189.w86-205.abo.wanadoo.fr [86.205.142.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A3E318F3AC; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:02:25 +0100 (BST)
References: <55DBFC39.5000701@cisco.com> <55DC0030.5080809@gmail.com> <55DC00CD.9040804@cisco.com> <A446C143EF3E8721BB647FA6@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <55DC8ABD.7010304@cisco.com>
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
To: "john-ietf >> John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
Message-ID: <55DC9F86.40002@gih.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:01:58 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55DC8ABD.7010304@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/gr5SDQk-rAdQk61N4hjmMbaoeUI>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus
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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:03:01 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
 
Dear John,

On 25/08/2015 17:33, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Responding to a note from John Klensin:
>> Second, even as someone who would prefer to see the US
>> Government's role in IANA transitioned out of existence, but
>> continuing to speak as devil's advocate,  I believe that a
>> reasonable person could come away from the three (or four if one
>> counts CWG and CCWG separately as may be appropriate) reports,
>> the process that led to them, the selection of newly-created (or
>> proposed) bodies, and the likely apportionment of power among
>> them with the conclusion that, while a transition is
>> appropriate, a transition that leaves all of the decision
>> authority in assorted ICANN entities, subsidiaries, and
>> appointees is not. 
>
> There are two problems with this devil's advocate statement.  The first
> is that not all the authority is left in assorted ICANN entities.
> Rather it is found in the three communities.  Second, any debate about
> the individual proposals should have happened within the communities.
>

FWIW, I agree with the points Eliot is making in this thread & others.
The IETF & RIRs can walk away from the agreement with ICANN if they want
to, so I do not see any "decision authority left in assorted ICANN
entities". If you see IETF & RIRs being assorted ICANN entities (god
forbid! :-) ) then I'd agree with you. But IMHO the decision authority
is in the Operational Communities.

The real concern I have about the current discussions (Devil's Advocate
aside, which I think is helpful) is the complete loss of the optics of
the wider picture. Are Operational Communities in this Internet Boat
together or are they living a "Life of Pi"? In the longer term, if we do
not find a way to have more trust across all three operational
communities, how are we going to ever stand as one to defend the
multi-stakeholder model of governance?

Kindest regards,

Olivier
(speaking personally)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
 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=yQqT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----