Re: [Internetgovtech] IANA Transition (was: what *is* a succession plan?)

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Sep 12, 2014, at 4:22 PM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> {I moved the thread from ianaplan@.  The subject line is meaningless.]

OK(?)

> At 12:19 12-09-2014, David Conrad wrote:
>> To be honest, a large proportion of this discussion has baffled me.  It's as if people didn't really believe the "bottom up, (rough) consensus driven" chorus they've been singing for _decades_.
> Yes.

I personally see that as a bit of a problem.

>> That authority comes from the consent of the users of the services (aka
> Here are a thread about the above: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76592.html  

I scanned that thread and remain unenlightened.

> The term "consent of the governed" has been used since over 20 years.  

Well, yes (1433 is a bit more than 20 years ago).

> One source for the term is http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html In some ways it emphasizes a difference in cultures.

That may be (there are a lot of cultures out there and I’m in no position to judge), however the question at hand is whether or not the NTIA IANA Functions contract “authorizes” the IANA protocol parameter function, i.e., if NTIA were to change their mind and decide to contract the IANA protocol parameter function to Most Hated Company, Inc., whether or not that would have any impact on the IETF.  Other than potentially requiring the IETF community to update a few documents indicating where folks should look for protocol parameter registries (i.e., _not_ at a site operated by MHC, Inc.), I personally don’t think so.  As such, I’ve been quite surprised at the discussion over on ianaplan.

Regards,
-drc
(ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself)