[Internetgovtech] Cross community (was: Re: ICANN Re: Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available)

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Mon, 21 July 2014 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@istaff.org>
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 6B0B81A005F for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lbbpBllqFJYz for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 147AF1A0059 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-108-56-179-253.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([108.56.179.253] helo=[192.168.1.10]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jcurran@istaff.org>) id 1X9GaW-000Fkc-Ac; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:37:20 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Originating-IP: 108.56.179.253
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+5sXbvW+TkHvbGTU1phc71
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <53CD291E.1020801@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:37:18 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <9045EC0A-E123-4CDC-B87F-5BC32C644C85@istaff.org>
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>
To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/Q_clQfoiKB9w731JpmgBgeD9PI0
Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org
Subject: [Internetgovtech] Cross community (was: Re: ICANN Re: Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available)
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: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:37:22 -0000

On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

> There are cross over concerns, for example in ICANN the Advisory
> Committees (At Large, Government, Security etc) have purview to advise
> on addresses as well as numbers and even parameters when it concerns
> tech that will be used to manage those names and numbers.

Could you elaborate some on the above concepts?  I understand how there is 
potential for consultation with such advisory committees if considered 
appropriate by the ICANN Board (and as provided for in the ASO Global Policy 
Development process), but the more typical method of engagement is directly 
in the policy development processes taking place in each RIR region... in 
this way, the input is considered closer to those affected by the outcome.  

Similarly, I am not aware of any ICANN advisory committees providing input 
to the IETF regarding issues in protocol parameter registry administration;
any/all parties with concerns are encouraged to participate in the relevant 
IETF working group and/or last call process to make sure their concerns are 
heard in a timely manner.

I guess I'm trying to understand what "IANA stewardship" responsibilities
the various ICANN advisory groups may feel with respect to the IP registry
and technical protocol parameter spaces?  Do you see it with respect to the
policy development aspect or policy administration/IANA registry operations?

> Why does our process say that they can't make recommendations on that?

I do not believe it does; my reading of the charter indicates that anyone 
can make recommendations regarding IANA stewardship and related transition 
matters.

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.