Re: IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt> (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Patrik,
At 23:25 18-06-2013, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see 
>as a very active participant in ICANN (chair of 
>SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some 
>"more" technical standards where developed in 
>IETF, and moved forward along standards track, 
>that ICANN can reference. Same with some 
>epp-related issues, and also DNS-related, which 
>I must admit I think has stalled in the IETF. 
>When that happens, ICANN start to "invent" or at 
>least discuss IETF related issues -- which I 
>think is non optimal. But on the other hand, if 
>IETF do not move forward, then what should ICANN do?

I'll highlight part of a comment from Steve Crocker:

    (I sometimes have to explain to my colleagues at ICANN who have not had the
    benefit of the IETF experience that "let's 
send it over to the IETF" doesn't
    work.  The IETF isn't a standing army ready 
to do ours or anyone else's work.
    Rather, I say, it's a place where the 
relevant people can get together to get
    their work done.

It is easy to see why there isn't significant 
progress about DNS-related issues in the 
IETF.  If nobody volunteers to do the work the 
work does not get done.  Whether the problems are 
acute enough to require surgery is not for me to decide.

The ITU does work as the IETF does not show 
interest in doing that work when it had the 
opportunity to do so.  I would not worry too much 
about ICANN inventing as, to quote John Klensin:

   I don't know whether that is because they don't have time to write shorter
   reports or because they don't think the subject matter can be covered in
   more concise reports, but the pattern is clear,   When those committees
   cannot agree or discover the issues are, in fact, contentious, they
   typically recommend the creation of more committees.

Sometimes people either do not see the problems 
or pretend not to see them (I am not inferring 
that you do that).  In the latter case I would be 
asked to explain why I think the problem is a 
problem when I mention it.  I am somewhat 
suspicious when people who have much more experience than me do that. :-)

I don't know whether you have been following the 
URNbis discussions.  That WG had leisurely 
discussions about the drafts since over three 
years.  It has not been able to publish a single 
RFC.  DNSEXT has been in shutdown mode since over 
a year.  The call for adoption of a draft in 
DNSOP failed as there wasn't significant interest 
within the working group to do that work.

I'll ask a question to the other persons 
subscribed to this mailing list.  Are there other 
active participants in ICANN interested in doing work in the IETF?

Regards,
-sm