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

[Suzanne Woolf <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 7, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Have been following the discussions and it's been quite interesting; much more interesting that it almost seem iana.org ownership is the deciding factor in this process[1].
> 
Have you read the draft? 

It seems to me that if you review both the mailing list and the draft, the work that's necessary for the IETF to reach consensus on what should go into the RFP response is mostly done.

It should perhaps also seem that most of the experienced IETF participants here don't regard anything about the iana.org domain name as "the deciding factor" in much of anything. Most of the pressure to make more of a point of what should happen to it in the event of a dispute is coming from people who are obviously deeply concerned about the future of the Internet, but whose primary experience of the IANA functions is not in the protocol parameters area or in how the IETF and its user communities interact with the IANA operator.
> The extent of back and fourth deliberation on the list, makes me wanna mention here that it will be good for IETF to start handling/addressing issues not only as a protocol parameter community but as the overall source of all the whole function. 
> For all it's worth, those who don't want to complicate the outcome of this process have great hope in IETF playing a leadership role in all these.
> 
I'm curious what you mean by this comment. Who thinks the IETF should be functioning here "not only as a protocol parameter community," what do they want instead, and how are they planning to make their requests or desires known?

As "the overall source of all the whole function," the IETF long ago delegated administration of certain protocol parameters to organizations deemed better able to address the related public policy concerns than the IETF is, or wants to be.  Are you suggesting revisiting that?
> I am beginning to wonder if this is the case.
> 
It looks to me as if the IETF is playing its part in a multi-stakeholder process, in which each of the operational communities directly affected by the IANA functions is expected to propose a transition plan for its area of concern. As far as I'd understood, and the ICG members here can certainly elaborate but the extensive public record is pretty clear, the ICG is then responsible for addressing gaps or conflicts between operational community plans. Its primary mechanism for resolving those conflicts is by engaging the affected operational communities to do so.

Certainly if later trouble can be avoided by communities collaborating now, we ought to try to make that happen. What do you think is missing?


thanks,
Suzanne

> Thanks.
> 
> Returning back to listening mode. ;)
> 
> Cheers!
> 1. Which IMO should just be a minimal component in this process especially as ntia is not the owner of the domain in the first place.
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> 
> On 7 Nov 2014 21:26, "Milton L Mueller" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Asking for a transfer sounds like a polite thing to do. Directing the IAOC to
> > "conclude a supplemental agreement" which "requires the transfer of any
> > associated marks and identifiers" - as the -02 text of the document reads
> > - sounds to me like an ultimatum which would antagonize other
> > stakeholders.
> 
> OK. I see the difference in the attitude with which we approach this. I am beginning to think it is a purely attitudinal matter and not all that substantive. So I have more sympathy for your position now but I still think you are focusing on the wrong things.
> 
> A request to the IAOC to "conclude an agreement" that "requires the transfer" is not an "ultimatum" it is a proposal for a rather impersonal set of institutional changes that sets the stage for long-term accountability improvements in Internet governance.
> 
> To put it more concretely, we are not talking to "nice people" sitting across the dinner table from us, asking them to pass the salt. We are trying to set the parameters for long term interactions among impersonal organizational entities and functions.
> 
> So if I were you I would focus on whether it is a good idea - for the general good of the Internet and for the IETF - for to have control of the iana.org domain and the trademark in the hands of the IETF trust or whether it is better for the public and the IETF to have it in the hands of ICANN. That's all that matters. The purpose of this exercise is to rearrange the institutional design to accommodate the withdrawal of the NTIA. The purpose is not to be polite or nice, or to avoid offending anyone. The purpose is to get it right.
> 
> If you sincerely believe that IETF should be permanently locked in to ICANN as IANA provider, should have no choice as to who performs those functions for it, and therefore the marks and domain should stay with ICANN, then fine. Please argue that position. I will engage with those arguments respectfully. But please let's not argue about etiquette!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan