Re: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <> Tue, 25 August 2015 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B26F1A007E for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lAp9uYe8IG8d for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:19e8:10:5::b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63D131A1BB3 for <>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A583D18F3AD; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:02:26 +0100 (BST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; 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;; 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 [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A3E318F3AC; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:02:25 +0100 (BST)
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
To: "john-ietf >> John C Klensin" <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus
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: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:03:01 -0000

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,

(speaking personally)
Version: GnuPG v2