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

[Milton L Mueller <[e-mail]>]

Andrew:
 
> "Preponderance of opinion" is not the way the IETF works.  We work by

I know that. Never said it was the way it works. I am simply pointing out to you that your view is far from commanding consensus. 

> I'm not panicking.  Miles is suggesting that there's something _outside_ IETF
> processes -- the IAOC, some lawyers, the IAB, anything
> -- that is appropriately brought to bear here.  I argue that, on the contrary,

I didn't take his message that way. I just thought he was saying it would make sense to involve people with governance, policy and legal expertise more directly in this working group.

> there really _isn't_ anything outside the WG in IETF terms.
> So Miles says, "Well, IETF processes are inappropriate for this, because
> $some_authoritay_not_here."  I agree with him that there isn't some
> external Internet Boss who can decide.  I think that's a feature, not a bug.

We must have read different messages from Miles. I didn't see any calls for an external internet boss there. Nor did I see a claim that IETF processes are inappropriate, because he knows as well as I do that this _is_ and _must be_ an IETF process according to the ICG procedure. I saw him say that we shouldn't misconceive THIS process as being fundamentally about engineering. And he's right. 

> No, I'm saying that is indeed a serious risk, and we ought to worry about it,
> but that meaningless shibboleths (viz. "the domain name where I got this")

Oh man. Do you know how much money has been spent by trademark litigants on those supposedly meaningless shibboleths called domain names that correspond to trademarks? It's probably in the billions. Now we can use two hypotheses to interpret that phenomenon: 
 1) the thousands of people spending this money have a realistic assessment of what it's worth to avoid various forms of confusion or misdirection that can be caused by semantic identifiers; or, 
 2) they are all fools and you know better. 
I'll let the rest of this group decide which hypothesis they think is correct.

> No, I have, but you reject the premise.  I have said that it forces us to
> negotiate with ICANN, potentially giving up something that we want instead
> of this.  You reject the idea that we'll have to negotiate over this, because
> NTIA will simply impose whatever we ask for.  In my opinion, that is a

I do think the NTIA is in a position to require ICANN to provide what the final proposal posits, if it wants the transition to happen. I also think the U.S. Congress, the EC and the rest of the world would not look favorably upon any attempt by ICANN to extort the IETF in some way, and that such disfavor could have severe consequences for ICANN as it moves into the second, "enhanced accountability" phase of the transition. 

Not only have you never provided any evidence that anything like that will happen, you have never explained why, if it does, the IETF can't simply say, 'no' to any unreasonable positions. If you want to be credible, you might start by identifying the 'something we want' that ICANN would be in a position to force you to give up if the transition plan included a requirement that they turn over the trademark and the domain. 

You are also factually incorrect about the source of the names community input. The source is not ICANN the corporation, but an independent and relatively open cross-community working group containing many critics of ICANN concerned about its accountability. Moreover, the names community seems to be entertaining the idea that IANA should be 'separable' from ICANN, too. No one there seems to have any fears that such a request will "force them to bargain with ICANN" and give up their first born son or some other 'something we want.' 

>  I just find it
> implausible that ICANN wouldn't care about this, but I believe that there are
> people busily trying to find out.  If I am wrong, I'll cheerfully withdraw my
> objection.

I think ICANN cares about this, but I think it cares more about making sure the transition happens and continuing to be the home of the IANA. I think most of the community, including ICANN, is coming to accept the position that if it wants to keep the IANA functions it has to be accountable, and that the most important form of maintaining accountability involves the ability to move the IANA functions provider to another entity. So I think it's quite plausible that ICANN would accept the changes demanded as long as there was no demand that it immediately give up the use of the domain and trademark, and it would then work to make sure that the IETF never moved the IANA functions out by providing good service. Fancy that.