Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

John Curran <> Tue, 22 July 2014 11:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186BF1A0AD5 for <>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jF97zjgq_xRO for <>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF1231A00FE for <>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1X9YZe-000LQY-VU; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:49:39 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Report-Abuse-To: (see for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18MPjCyJoTZou4qxX2KGv7f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: John Curran <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 07:49:37 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Avri Doria <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
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: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:49:41 -0000

On Jul 22, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Avri Doria <> wrote:

> On 22-Jul-14 06:00, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> NTIA today has nothing to do with "accountability mechanisms for each
>> of the parties administering each parameter space" under IETF policy
>> management, and touches only a very small handful of general purpose
>> parameter spaces associated with IETF protocols (DNS and IP).
> I disagree.  NTIA provides a giant accountability function.
> Just about everyone goes running to NTIA whenever something they don't
> like happens.  And the fine folks at NTIA finesse the situation and get
> things back on the right track.  I believe it happens all the time.

That might happen with respect to DNS general-purpose identifiers, but such
is consequential of ICANN being in all of the roles at once when it comes to
DNS (coordination/accountability, policy development, policy administration, 
registry update, and registry publication), whereas the original blueprint 
called DNS policy development to be primarily arms-length to ICANN in an 
independent body.  Mash all of those roles together, and you get lots of 
accountability concerns and opportunities for NTIA involvement.  

Both the RIRs and IETF operate with policy development external to ICANN;
NTIA has not, to my knowledge, ever been involved in "finessing" any issue
in those areas.

> NTIA are the adults in the room and we better have adequate

> accountability all around when they step out of their role.

It's worth noting that (for IP addresses and protocol parameters) that we've 
had that solid accountability via membership structures, long-established 
use of open/transparent practices, and contractual separation of roles from 
the IANA since day one, so it would indeed be nice to see some of that sort 
of progress in the DNS area.

Please remember that both the IETF and several of teh Regional Internet 
registries predate ICANN and have represented "running code" long before
the IANA functions contract came into being.


Disclaimer: My views alone.