IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net> Thu, 10 July 2014 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <cdel@firsthand.net>
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 151AB1B285F for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 03:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.391
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_UK=1.749, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no
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 3b-hV96jvYDa for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 03:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bmtwo.vm.bytemark.co.uk (mail.firsthand.net [212.110.188.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0F051B285E for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 03:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-No-Relay: not in my network
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=firsthand.net; b=MImeCeZxJOQAgU0BKdLr7eZdsq1JBl+hZySWBi70OtbMf4PX45bT+nJ1aPQWWv5uiSY/xRLsaLe30PlGCikL9PEXzvEPG2hUUxFDeYJ7+AcqIPy8SEaLPug4dibdIaBl; h=X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type;
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
Received: from orionlocal.local (host-78-147-2-204.as13285.net [78.147.2.204]) by bmtwo.vm.bytemark.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87E51E0102; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:24:23 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <53BE69D2.9070509@firsthand.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 11:24:18 +0100
From: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140708142055.0d5fbb78@elandnews.com> <D1AC4482BED7C04DAC43491E9A9DBEC3998608C6@BK-EXCHMBX01.blacknight.local> <20140709161653.GM59034@mx1.yitter.info> <9B506E73B33873103AE5EC52@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20140709171401.GB2935@mx1.yitter.info> <53BD843F.1070304@cs.tcd.ie> <53BD84BB.7000002@meetinghouse.net> <53BDA867.7090701@gmail.com> <53BE602F.7020108@firsthand.net> <53BE6384.5030504@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <53BE6384.5030504@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig548C5127725BE30795B4A788"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/S1FhvaIMeTBXc9wMGAHvbXIVkcA
Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web
X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cdel@firsthand.net
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: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:24:28 -0000

ICANN has an opportunity to row back of course. I'm not discounting
Lynn's suggestion.

However the intent of my point is that IETF is in danger of delegating
its own responsibilities by allowing the debates to be framed to protect
the interests of, and be owned and implemented by another institution
that is itself a vested interested party. That is ICANN. So there is
quite a bit of back peddling needed.

Taking the initiative here is also important. IETF has responsibility
to  establish process and requirements for any future contract it
directly makes without US Gov intercession with a registry operator
(whether that is at IANA/ ICANN or anywhere)

Brian talks about "oversight with teeth". That is looking increasingly
unlikely. The alternative is undersight with teeth and that is where
IETF and other bottom up communities can develop.

C

Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> On 10/07/14 10:43, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
> > The key response from IETF is some fraternal frankness that
> > expresses with clarity our requirements for Registry operations in
> > future.
>
> Possibly that. But I also liked what Lynn said - one of the things
> that I think I've seen learned by some IETF leadership is when to
> put up your hands and say "ok, we were wrong, the community don't
> like <X>, here's what we'll do in future," that usually in response
> to the community rightly beating up some AD on ietf@ietf.org:-)
> I don't think the IESG or IAB are perfect in that respect, but when
> the community has (rough) consensus on a thing then that position
> does win I think.
>
> I think a note to Fadi or whoever within icann saying that its
> time that icann did the equivalent could be useful. (Though I find
> it hard to believe icann don't have someone watching this list, or
> their own, and they should've just figured out the above earlier.)
>
> S.

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
FBCS, CITP, MCMA
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel@firsthand.net
-------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email