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

[manning bill <[e-mail]>]

John, the remark was to temper what might become unrealistic expectations on the reach of the IAB/IETF
into -ANY- organizational operational practice.

That said, I do not wish to derail this document, just ensure that the caveat is in place before it is enshrined
as holy writ.

/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 5March2015Thursday, at 9:39, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Thursday, March 05, 2015 09:00 -0800 manning bill
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> (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')
> 
> Bill,
> 
> Addressing this one issue only:
> 
> (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.
> 
> 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.
> 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.
> 
> best,
>     john
> 
> 
> 
>