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

Andrew Sullivan <> Mon, 21 July 2014 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9098B1A00D2 for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-O9Y6dRn9_J for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B8491A0021 for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C7358A031 for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:47:05 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:47:04 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available
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: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:47:08 -0000

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

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,


Andrew Sullivan