Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, May 21, 2015 06:08 -0400 John Curran
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On May 20, 2015, at 11:10 PM, John C Klensin
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>... 
>> I do see is a demonstration of a concern that a few of us have
>> had for some time -- the possibility that, freed of external
>...
> John - The CWG draft was posted for public comment, and the
> IETF was specifically asked  by the ICG to consider it and
> provide feedback on implications to the protocol community…  
> As a result, it's fairly difficult to characterize the CWG
> efforts as being done "without much  regard for other needs or
> the opinions of other communities"   (In fact, if it were
> not for the  "IAB IANA Evolution Program" filing of its
> comment, it would be relatively straightforward to 
> characterize the IETF as the party that is the one that was
> not considering the needs of the  other communities…)
>...

I should have been more precise.  I am more concerned about
Milton's "take it or leave it" responses and some related
remarks than I am the CWG process and its outputs.  I remain
concerned about the latter for three significant reasons: 

(1) The broader community (including the IETF) has been asked to
review and comment on a report/proposal that is extremely
incomplete in areas that are important to some of us.  Even had
the CWG asked other groups to make suggestions about what should
be filled into those blanks, the timing of the request and
comment cutoff yesterday made it impossible to have a competent
discussion of those subjects, generate proposals, and reach
consensus about them.

(2) While I recognize that everyone is operating under time
pressure and that the CWG proposal is already far later than
originally expected, I see any changes that do more than update
the status quo (or status quo before the transition discussions
started) as involving costs and risks to the community.  I see
the proposal from you and your colleagues to establish an SLA
model similar to the IETF one as fairly low-risk in that regard.
It is, IMO, a small update, the approach has been established
and demonstrated for some years by the IETF, and, again at least
from my perspective, the address community really is a community
with a history of being able to work and act together.  By
contrast, PTI is a new idea, with details still incomplete and
no community experience with, e.g., ICANN creating and relating
to a subsidiary "affiliate" and how that would work out.  To
guess at how (or if) it might work out and to assess the
practical risks, understanding the motivation for it --more
precisely described as "what problem are you trying to solve and
why do you think this solves it" -- is essential.  It might be
less important were there no important missing pieces in the CWG
proposal, but those pieces _are_ important and "what problem are
you trying to solve" is also useful for guessing how they might
be filled in and what criteria the CWG (and the names community
more broadly) might think they have to meet.  So I think those
questions are legitimate and, indeed, important.

(3) Finally, there are multiple examples of various ICANN groups
producing documents and proposals, asking for public comments on
them, getting (and counting) comments, and then, as far as can
be determined from the outside, essentially ignoring the content
and recommendations in those comments.  At least from my point
of view, part of that same picture involves giving particular
groups very narrow scope and treating any comments, concerns, or
suggestions that go beyond those scopes to, e.g., challenge
assumptions, as unacceptable and irrelevant.  I have no reason
to believe that the CWG intends to follow those patterns but,
given that the community that the CWG represents has tolerated
that behavior within ICANN, it is reasonable to view their
posting a draft for public comment and asking for input less
conclusively than your comment above seems to suggest (a view
that is, again, supported by Milton's comments and the absence
of comments from other CWG members rejecting or qualifying his
apparent position).

> The CWG plan is not a work of art, and certainly not how most
> of us would go about solving their particular accountability
> conundrum. It is, however, the result of an enormous amount of
> effort by the names community, and the IETF was not being
> asked to judge the rationale  for their proposed changes (as
> you seem so anxious to do), but to consider the associated
> implications of the changes for the protocol community and
> comment accordingly. 

Again, especially because the plan is incomplete, I don't
understand how we can evaluate it, and especially the associated
risks and costs, without understanding "their particular
accountability conundrum" and/or "the rationale for their
proposed changes".   Without either of those two kinds of
information, I do have an opinion about impact and risks to the
IETF, and have expressed it before, I think in my first note on
the subject: this is too complex, it introduces new risks of
non-transparent behavior that may be accountable to small groups
but is not even as accountable to the broader community as
ICANN's operation of IANA is today, and therefore should not be
considered acceptable.   More details about structure, controls,
and motivation might allay those concerns, but the details are
not present.

> If you  should happen to see someone
> from the "IAB IANA Evolution Program", you might want to 
> thank them for recognizing this and getting the actual job
> done (at least from the perspective of one portion of the IETF
> community.)

https://www.iab.org/activities/programs/iana-evolution-program/

best,
    john