Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 23 July 2014 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28B81B28A8 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rK1kIJfDjsuJ for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F5F1B27D3 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6C8F240DC; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:04:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JgnsNfwLwPsU; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:03:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from v150.vpn.iad.rg.net (v150.vpn.iad.rg.net [198.180.150.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D4AF240DD; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:03:50 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <53D025F3.5050708@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:03:39 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8B4A9C47-A070-40EA-862E-B626CB193424@vigilsec.com>
References: <A193D048-2B67-469A-93BA-C61BB362DA75@vigilsec.com> <53CD1E8A.1060804@acm.org> <FA4238C4-ADDC-435F-9591-E3B074C2F6F6@vigilsec.com> <53CD2300.5050307@acm.org> <20140721143105.GH16966@mx1.yitter.info> <53CD291E.1020801@acm.org> <9045EC0A-E123-4CDC-B87F-5BC32C644C85@istaff.org> <53CD57E8.4000909@acm.org> <B7163126-31B6-4CC6-A711-F225051C294A@istaff.org> <53CD8F41.9060909@gih.com> <53CD939D.5020001@cisco.com> <9DE8F705-9748-407D-8E77-7B787ACD9873@gmail.com> <53CE4B39.1090202@acm.org> <53D016B6.2020000@gih.com> <53D01E6B.8020606@gmail.com> <53D025F3.5050708@acm.org>
To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/MGVAtTLBOKRSeXwocCuLff3lCq8
Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community
X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <internetgovtech.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/>
List-Post: <mailto:internetgovtech@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:04:23 -0000

Avri:

> For me, as an example at this point, I see breakage on things like the
> self established ability of the IETF to unilaterally decide that a
> protocol mandates removing labels from the list of available TLD labels.
> 
> As a long time participant in the IETF, I see how natural this decision
> is for the the IETF and a part of me cheers at the simplicity of this
> solution for any number of issues.
> 
> As a member of the ICANN GNSO Council I am outraged at the idea because
> it is a policy decision that the technical arm of the enterprise has no
> business making.

I cannot imagine such a thing happening without coordination.  There was coordination before ".local" was selected by the technical community.  The coordination turned out to be straightforward because ".local" was on the list that ICANN was not allowed to use.

I'd like to see a process for this coordination written down, but I am not worried about "unilateral" decisions.

Russ