Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Mon, 03 November 2014 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
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 A22B31A00F1 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:29:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 kSV0D0KOoSpw for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:29:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:18cc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14CFC1A00CD for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:29:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-39-117-99.adslplus.ch [178.39.117.99]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA3KTl9a009026; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 21:29:48 +0100
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, ianaplan@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 21:30:28 +0100
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNEENBCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <20141103183007.GP27751@mx1.yitter.info>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Importance: Normal
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/iA2KJjik_EuxREKEoK9J2aj4k_A
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch
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: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:29:56 -0000

Please see below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sullivan
> Sent: lundi, 3. novembre 2014 19:30
> To: ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working
> group last call
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:14:19PM +0100, Richard Hill wrote:
> > So, since the IANA function was originally an emanation of the IETF
>
> No, it was not.  It was an emanation of someone to whom various
> interested parties deferred.  The IETF didn't exist yet, at least in
> the form it subsequently took.

The IETF was created in 1986, see:

  http://www.ietf.org/glossary.html#IETF

I already referred to the early history of the IANA function in a previous
E-Mail, see:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00570.html

As that E-Mail says, the  first formal reference to "IANA" seems to be in
RFC 1060, of 1990.

So the IANA function was an emanation of the IETF.

>
> In general, I think foundational arguments in this area are likely to
> get us into a dark and very wet swamp.  It seems to me that we need to
> concentrate on what outcome we want ("stuff stays the same"),

Yes.  But we differ on what "staying the same" means.

To me, it means that ICANN should not have unfettered control of the mark
IANA and the domain name IANA.ORG.

> and what
> to do in case things fall apart.

Exactly.  Trying to negotiate with ICANN if things do fall apart is going to
be messy.  Anybody who has gone through a divorce, or has friends who have
gone through divorces, should understand what I'm referring to.

>"Stay the same" requires, as far as
> I can tell, that we not try to negotiate for things we're unlikely to
> get,

Why do you assume that?  As Milton has pointed out, ICANN is bound to
implement whatever the consenus is of the global multi-stakeholder
community.  So there won't be  negotiation between ICANN and whoever.  ICANN
will do whatever the consensus plan presented by the ICG says it should do.

>because once you start negotiating you have to decide what things
> you're willing to give up, and I think we don't want to give things up
> because we like the way things are.

You've lost me.  I can't see any scenario under which there is anything to
negotiate, see above.

> This means we need a different
> plan for what to do in case things fall apart.

Why not keep it simple, and transfer the mark and the domain name IANA.ORG
to the IETF Trust?

>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>