Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 25 July 2014 07:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BE51B2788 for <>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.458
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IjUxtfWAQ5Sw for <>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A4D1AD972 for <>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6P7qhXZ019621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1406274776; x=1406361176; bh=tzl5wDWYZyNRJQ0pOkwXN0hPcR2nTevD2/V7yVG+RwU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Sm2wLcY+tiudAc4+AhKlYoXU+ClTKMwK1N9BgMmkgUS9o1/GphPABJm5kH0wRYHw4 NjnNp+AuxOUMkHsBfY44dqlkz0F3ZU6O3PnjOtniSpALpvB4BNjnPwlI/TzbS4EhkK +55iAbJ5ylvdkIiuWXYJbdHryY/1n52LTHrJnwdQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1406274776; x=1406361176;; bh=tzl5wDWYZyNRJQ0pOkwXN0hPcR2nTevD2/V7yVG+RwU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=lvF86YgX/tpb6oIqzMrKD3HRSVNkRmOunbCrDZnIzNeMoRndF0/f/Csz/KjyMs0pA Y1NUiYeg/LNJxEnMdJE0C4x/hpSH+JL4zwLfEXLaiHkQmtaVyqi1YxcvKFfKH92TWV 9jnAVgw9TIjaZnXKF8YBYLEZZu6Qtu5v1efs2KaA=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:58:01 -0700
To: John Curran <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:52:59 -0000

Hi John,
At 13:52 24-07-2014, John Curran wrote:
>A single misstep is unlikely to cause folks to go to another venue for
>their Internet standards development; it would probably take a pattern of
>decisions which impact others without reasonable opportunity for input to
>cause such an outcome.  This is very unlikely given the open nature of
>IETF standards development, but does highlight the need for the various
>organizations (IETF, ICANN, RIRs) to keep each other apprised of any policy
>or standards development that may be of cross interest.  This has worked
>very well between the RIRs and the IETF, okay with the RIRs and ICANN from
>what I can tell (and I do not know how well the IETF/ICANN communication
>in this area has worked.)

I'll say ok to the above as I do not do the coordination.

>And such folks are free to write Internet Drafts which describe the problem
>(as they see it) with a given protocol or registry requirement, and 
>in the IETF process to get things changed to something more 
>pleasing.  If their
>arguments have merit, they are likely to be picked up and advanced by others
>via the process, and if not, then the asserted misstep is actually a 

A generally accepted theory or belief was that nothing could be done 
about 2050 as the previous attempts to update the document resulted 
in failure.  I don't think that the move happened based on the merit 
of the arguments.  There is a thread on ietf@ about something more 
pleasing.  Some things are unsurprising.

>In any case, this is all handled via the existing IETF processes for 
>and registry policy development; there is no evidence of any need for new or
>additional accountability mechanisms for these IETF processes, 
>particularly to
>the extent that the IETF work predominantly covers technical matters 
>rather than
>"public policy" issues.  That aligns well with the IANA Stewardship 
>proposal development effort, which is not scoped to include accountability
>mechanisms for "how relevant policies are created, nor the relevant 
>in which they are created."

I have followed the non-IETF discussions about the word 
"accountability".  In some ways it is about a clash of cultures and 
other considerations.  The IETF can end up as collateral damage in all that.

S. Moonesamy