Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 02 September 2014 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 EDA141A0068 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] 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 vsmBoZbn7r-T for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D41D1A0047 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 04:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3CDBEEB; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:01:39 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZ7LQrereiej; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:01:33 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.9] (unknown [86.42.23.36]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0F04BEBF; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:01:33 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <5405A38D.9080807@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:01:33 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rhill@hill-a.ch, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEGNCKAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEGNCKAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/yK6pdJMf8iPHILLSfVuQ0jcAIDY
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:01:44 -0000



On 02/09/14 11:56, Richard Hill wrote:
> What we are discussing is whether the existing mechanisms will be sufficient
> after the NTIA withdraws from its "stewardship" role, which role included
> placing stringent conditions on the way that ICANN performs the IANA
> function.

Let me quote some earlier text from Richard:

"If they are not changed, then, in my view, ICANN will have no choice
but to consider that it has ultimate authority over the global
Internet's systems of unique identifiers, which of course includes
the protocol parameters."

That quoted text is not worst-case scenario analysis IMO as it
utterly ignores the current accountability mechanisms for the
protocol parameters. Any kind of analysis that similarly ignores
the current reality is a bad idea.

I don't really see much value in further disagreement as to
whether or not the quoted text is a useful contribution or something
else.

S.

> 
> The reality is that NTIA envisages withdrawing.  Whether that is significant
> or not appears to be disputed.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Stephen
>> Farrell
>> Sent: mardi, 2. septembre 2014 12:53
>> To: Miles Fidelman; rhill@hill-a.ch; Brian E Carpenter
>> Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/09/14 11:44, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The whole point of accountability mechanisms, be they in law or contract
>>> form, is to address worst case situations.  When things are working,
>>> there's little need for such mechanisms.
>>
>> Sure. But discussing this when such mechanisms do exist already
>> (as is the case for protocol parameters) as if those mechanisms
>> did not exist, is what I commented upon. That is not considering
>> a worst-case scenario, that constitutes ignoring reality.
>>
>> S.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>