Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?

Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com> Mon, 19 October 2015 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>
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 D0ECB1B2D4C for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 J_5OjDgyf3-3 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x229.google.com (mail-qg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D0C41B2E1C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgeo38 with SMTP id o38so179413qge.0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=BzdrC/wYXS+meJurmr1tA+FPS/FtoX6QesfKo4tb1dw=; b=q6t4NWnpyH6KeG250sHI1QYpzCplOCSxVI5oXi9X7Ss0k3XOcBjEvHyi9mStG/er+s 4aS+xpg+9bcN4iEg3WBSkvLCMYFxOivDda0bGuvMY/LeWNlFBvQX4U/shU2VZwJPDezo YA/PBVcT3tcx6F5qfUiEngBY28U22TBKC3oNuJDvRKWZbbrX9xS2Tu3cYagPjAGfVWO9 I6EM4A2iy7lukRvfAXw2roIWFj6Cc/RP0caHSsC+Jmrq8J2R1wQkke1AOEJi4hge75mY pd09ZrC3O4P+0+09R1oqBXUbdsnZOvHhFiEPKEYpXCdRaa4KccV6TyEXJfkumcBoHv5D CNVw==
X-Received: by 10.140.132.11 with SMTP id 11mr12118207qhe.64.1445295592696; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.207.72 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56256A1D.6010905@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
References: <20151019183240.61852.qmail@ary.lan> <A70F3A9F3FB05C0F84CBD7CB@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <56256A1D.6010905@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:59:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwVzy_-UcA=Zk2ohWPnYzRfKEgW5AnckF52R5kfBrzDoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/wTzyCHs98hqHoAOAGa0WEpKa95I>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 19 Oct 2015 23:00:03 -0000

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
<ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>; wrote:
> John, Elliot, John, ... and other rational creatures I've known for years.
>
> Mr. Johnson is sharing the same fine vintage on the CCWG list, waving
> fundamental rights and kings and so on at all and sundry.
>
> I am so reminded of just how bad the domreg mail was in '98.
>
> And the IETF protects our employers (when we have them) from anti-trust
> liabilities, which is not quite the motivation for pursuing policy goals in
> any component of ICANN, so unsurprisingly, there are differences in the
> mechanisms for review.



I think the following was my earliest posting here on this general theme.

What's great about the present moment is that the transition's nature
is starting to become evident, even among folks who are very leery
about talking about the law.

I will see about finding some earlier proposals I presented.  I've
been acutely aware that this isn't stuff that gets through until
people see it coming to fruition.


Seth


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>;
Date: Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] what *is* a succession plan?
To: "rhill@hill-a.ch"; <rhill@hill-a.ch>;
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>;, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>;, "ianaplan@ietf.org"; <ianaplan@ietf.org>;,
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>;, Eliot Lear
<lear@cisco.com>;


Yep.  People are just not getting the fact that we're handing things
off to the international arena, and the stewardship context we've
enjoyed will no longer work there to continue to support the type of
consensus pow-wow type of process we've relied on.

I think you definitely get the ramifications of handing off to the
international arena, though from a different set of priorities from
those that are traditional in this community.

People just think they can expect business as usual, and it's true
that it's hard to see just why the NTIA connection makes that
difference.  They just don't see the new dynamics that arise.


Seth



On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>; wrote:
> Please see below.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Richard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Brian E
>> Carpenter
>> Sent: dimanche, 14. septembre 2014 04:52
>> To: Stephen Farrell
>> Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org; Miles Fidelman; Eliot Lear
>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] what *is* a succession plan?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Yet.  I agree with those who state that at the very least we should
>> >> seek review of this issue by counsel.
>> >
>> > A review of what exactly? Again, sorry for being dim but
>> > I don't get it.
>>
>> We always have all ink-signature agreements reviewed by counsel
>> before we sign them.
>>
>> But for now I haven't seen a single argument why we would *want*
>> to cancel an MoU that has worked well for 15 years and start
>> again. It's playing with fire for no reason, as far as I can see.
>
> And, as far as I can see, it is playing with fire for no reason to assume
> that there is no need to revise the existing MoU if the NTIA IANA functions
> contract no longer is in place.
>
> The system that has worked well for 15 years includes the NTIA contract.  To
> assume that no changes are needed to take into account its absence is
> equivalent to asserting that the existing NTIA contract has no significance
> or effect.
>
> But, if the existing NTIA contract has no significance or effect then (1)
> why did NTIA put so much effort over the years to establish it and (2) why
> did NTIA call on ICANN to put into place a rather elaborate consultation
> process to discuss what should be done to replace the NTIA contract?
>
> Apparently the NTIA does not think that its existing IANA functions contract
> has no significance or effect, otherwise they could just have announced that
> they would not renew it.  Full stop.
>
>
>
>>
>>    Brian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan