Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:13:47AM -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> When applicants (note the plural) sought single Han script character
> (necessarily 5 or more octets) labels in the IANA root, the IETF's
> liaison objected, and when an applicant sought to use only
> characters in the 0-9 range as a label in the IANA root, again, the
> IETF's liaison objected.

Right.  What's wrong with that?  In that case, we've actually created
a formal mechanism for the IETF to deliver its opinions to ICANN -- a
liaison.  Also, because all the relevant communities (IETF, ICANN, all
the RIRs) run open, community-driven processes, people can have a foot
in both worlds: there's nothing that says you have to participate in
only one community.  I think you'd be seeing a very different set of
proposals if some of these communities were closed.  But they're not,
and I don't think it's worth inventing a process for a problem we
don't have.

Anyway, by and large, there are three areas of interest here with
three associated communities _qua_ community.  I'm not sure I see how
trying to mix that up (and invent a complete new process by which we
co-ordinate across these communities in real time) is better than
saying, "Just use the existing processes we have for the three broad
areas."

Now, are there some corner cases?  Of course.  But reasonable
engineering says that, for a one-time event, you can deal with the
small number of corner cases one at a time by hand, rather than create
a process.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]