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

David Conrad <> Sat, 13 September 2014 01:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF391A01A8 for <>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N0W3KMD3TaQZ for <>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5B701A01EF for <>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ey11so2413310pad.34 for <>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=jrqEEZKtUGORvhL2fEa4jroPVOleW9HkGb1Vm1g0qYw=; b=g04sy5QlSWhbnOajIhKrH554NS9m8KZhrP5JjlGCL0F/vRgDGHQujBMrFSeetXZOnB Ohkt/SLRrxkJ7IX9Lbp7YGrrJdtwrRGwyxwbTFlWCp2EF2lygBtm856Z6XhPAb2k8Uqn bW7RrxEHeW/z2CFYnoZP0PD5N93GSC58whyCwvQYA3kEVZiG29/EcU5ns+lgdMVbBcO+ EVeVv2jBssuN3pZUD32pvAQ5JX2p+Cv0bonbIcLgGADwTMZsRv0P74LI4xZSxqiWFSMO OEvl5gYbMXSoFZQpULMg7w+vGHudOVCepyKqutHvJUPNXZPe94ujhWMcebc6oTY89Zlc 5rFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnVlPJDF9PRXGGKnVphC4toBsN+rddfvNJYCTzaS0DpI2UPdALdZG0fN3AGu5+nY7yJ3D8u
X-Received: by with SMTP id fq8mr18994531pdb.152.1410572332338; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id ty8sm5232093pab.26.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8836E87B-E1CC-41AF-9827-8F0249B71732"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: David Conrad <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:49 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: S Moonesamy <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] IANA Transition (was: what *is* a succession plan?)
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: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 01:38:55 -0000


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


> 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:  

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 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.

(ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself)