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

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 21, 2013, at 2:56 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> While I agree with the above (and am still trying to avoid
> carrying this conversation very far on the IETF list), I think
> another part of the puzzle is that there are also situations in
> which technical considerations imply real constraints on policy
> alternatives.  Some obvious examples include physical constants
> like the speed of light, others, only slightly less obvious,
> include things like the design of the DNS as a simply hierarchy
> that cannot support symmetric aliases (i.e., anything that would
> support an actual "came from" function or a list of all of the
> names that point to a given note).  The policy folks ignore
> those constraints, or treat them as subject to policy-making
> decisions at the risk of being ridiculous and/or causing
> considerable harm to the Internet.  While they are less obvious
> in this community, I suggest it works the other way too -- there
> are policy and economic decisions and realities that are as much
> constraints on the technical solution space as those technical
> constrains are on the policy ones, with just about the same
> risks of ridiculousness or damage if they are ignored.

Agreed.  I believe that there is a better understanding of this
situation now than in the earlier days (including among governments
who are beginning to seriously engage with ICANN's GAC.)

> That is, again, why it is so unfortunate that the original model
> of the IAB/PSO as one of ICANN's three "everyone has to work
> together" pillars was abandoned... and more unfortunate that it
> was replaced on the ICANN side by approximately nothing other
> than some committees and other bodies that could easily be
> ignored and on the IETF side by depending on individuals with
> feet in both camps to speak up.


It's difficult to lay blame anyone from walking away from the PSO approach;
in ICANN's early years it always seemed to be a vestigial structure serving
little purpose. The lack of apparent value was amplified when ICANN changed 
its proposed structure (from being oversight and coordination between true
independent supporting organizations) into a heavily DNS-focused direction 
by opting to absorb the DNSO internally in the initial Singapore meeting.
If ICANN were operating solely in a coordination and oversight role, with 
policy, process, and protocol development done in supporting organizations, 
then it would have been a lot easier to make the liaison and coordination 
function successful, both between pillars (DNSO, ASO, PSO) and to/from 
governmental types.  For some reason, doing that in the margin of a 97%
DNS-focused omnibus policy/oversight/coordination/operation organization 
doesn't provide the necessary level of attention.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimers: My views alone.  Apologies for length; I lacked the time to
write a shorter reply.