Re: last call discussion status on draft-iab-2870bis

[Lars-Johan Liman <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail]:
>> (I'll say that 2870bis is on thin ice, since the IETF/IAB
>> have no leverage on root server operators.  This community can
>> pontificate at length, but the actual operations will dictate,
>> not some wish list from an "arms-length" standards body...
>> Just sayin')

[e-mail]:
> (1) Yes.

> (2) On the other hand, RSSAC and/or "the root server operators"
> have never been what I think are called "multistakeholder
> consensus bodies".  Arguably, neither is the IETF but there is
> definitely a difference in terms of conditions for entry into
> the group and openness of participation and the consensus
> process.   So, especially in the middle of controversies about
> IANA transition and accountability of various parts of the
> system, to say, effectively, "the root server operators will do
> whatever they feel like and no one has any leverage on them" is
> an invitation to demands for policy oversight of RSSAC and the
> root server operations process by folks who represent a broader
> stakeholder base.

> Perhaps the "Caucus" is intended to serve that multistakeholder
> role, but it isn't clear that it can do anything other than
> advise and its membership is appointed by the RSSAC, not the
> broader community.

RSSAC is not your (their) target.

Just to make it clear (and this is something I have to do repeatedly in
many situations):

RSSAC is an advisory body that advices

1) The ICANN Board of Directors,

2) The DNS and Internet communities in general,

on matters that relate to the DNS root zone administration and the root
server system.

It is _NOT_ a vehicle to impose restrictions and regulation on the root
server operators.

You correctly note "... and the root server process ...", but I think
your fears should be limited to that, because RSSAC is not the
appropriate target for said folks.

> If you and/or the root server operations community don't want to
> risk ending up in a multistakeholder situation that it can't
> control, some explicit respect for guidance from the IAB and/or
> IETF might serve that community's interests in the long term.

This draft is intended to be one step in that direction.

> Indeed, if I were part of that community and wanted to see more
> or less the status quo preserved, I'd be looking to replaced or
> supplement 2870bis with an explicit MOU or other agreement about
> IETF and/or IAB review or supervision. However obnoxious that
> might be, I'm certain it would be preferable to effective
> oversight by some body dominated by ICANN politics.

Hmm.

				Cheers,
				  /Liman
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc.               !  E-mail: [e-mail]
# Senior Systems Specialist             !  Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12
# Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm   !  http://www.netnod.se/
#----------------------------------------------------------------------