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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Pretty much ALL of the questions the ICG has posed are organizational 
and contractual in nature - roles, responsibilities, who does what, to 
whom.  Who develops policy, and by what process.  Who implements 
policy.  Who coordinates with whom.  What will change if and when the 
NTIA CONTRACT goes away; and what needs to change for that to work.

Very little, if anything we've been asked to respond to is technical in 
nature.

If we think such matters are "nonsense," and/or outside our scope of 
expertise - then, by definition, we should not be the (only) ones 
addressing them.

Miles Fidelman

Peterson, Jon wrote:
>
>> I agree with Miles. The IANA transition is not an engineering exercise. It
>> is a contractual exercise.
> The question of what we safeguards we require in case of a dire
> contingency is only a small component of the response we've been asked to
> deliver, but it's the only part under discussion in this corner of the
> thread. Arguing that seizing assets and powers (arguably ones we never
> held before) is the proper way to address this contingency would indeed
> make it a contractual exercise. But that isn't the only type of safeguard
> under consideration.
>
>> If the IETF is not the right body to take care of those sorts of issues,
>> then let's say so and ask somebody else to do the job.
> We are the right body to issue a response to the questions the ICG has
> asked, but after that we'll go back to being engineers and doing what we
> do to make the Internet better. The sooner we're rid of this nonsense, the
> better.
>
> Jon Peterson
> Neustar, Inc.
>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Miles
>>> Fidelman
>>> Sent: mardi, 4. novembre 2014 22:28
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re:
>>> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
>>>
>>>
>>> Peterson, Jon wrote:
>>>>> Somehow, this "oh, if ICANN doesn't do the job, we'll take our ball
>>> and
>>>>> move it elsewhere" seems a rather timid attitude and approach.
>>>> No, it's just engineering. We're a body of engineers. If we can solve
>>> a
>>>> problem by engineering rather than engaging in politics, it plays to
>>> our
>>>> strengths. When we try to assert some authority over governments and
>>>> corporations, then we are playing in a space where we have
>>> little traction
>>>> or competence and where we are likely to lose.
>>>>
>>>> Please stop trying to steer us there.
>>>>
>>> We are MORE than a body of engineers.  We are a body that promulgates
>>> standards that are central to global infrastructure, and we are part of
>>> a body of contractually defined relationships that define roles and
>>> responsibilities for how those standards are used and implemented.
>>>
>>> The whole point of the NTIA transition process is to clarify, and
>>> re-align some of those roles and responsibilities when the NTIA contract
>>> goes away - which has very little to do with engineering, and a whole
>>> lot to do with "techno-politics."
>>>
>>> Please stop trying to deny that, or steer us away from the reality of
>>> the roles and responsibilities associated with the role the IETF plays.
>>>
>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ianaplan mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra