Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Wed, 23 July 2014 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <avri@acm.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 604C31A004D for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.685
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 ZJqoYs28-Kbt for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800641B27B9 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.208]) by atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6NMaTwb020858 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:36:29 -0400
Received: (qmail 11429 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jul 2014 22:36:29 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.15.42.104
X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (avri@ella.com@68.15.42.104) by 0 with ESMTPA; 23 Jul 2014 22:36:28 -0000
Message-ID: <53D038EC.9010407@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:36:28 -0400
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: internetgovtech@iab.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> <9045EC0A-E123-4CDC-B87F-5BC32C644C85@istaff.org> <53CD57E8.4000909@acm.org> <B7163126-31B6-4CC6-A711-F225051C294A@istaff.org> <53CD8F41.9060909@gih.com> <53CD939D.5020001@cisco.com> <9DE8F705-9748-407D-8E77-7B787ACD9873@gmail.com> <53CE4B39.1090202@acm.org> <53D016B6.2020000@gih.com> <53D01E6B.8020606@gmail.com> <53D025F3.5050708@acm.org> <8B4A9C47-A070-40EA-862E-B626CB193424@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B4A9C47-A070-40EA-862E-B626CB193424@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140722-1, 07/22/2014), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/ZpxINtTlh9SQc4vPYzhQQFk6NSQ
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community
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: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:36:31 -0000

Hi,

As I say I do not remember coordination, but maybe.  It is just an example.

And it is not really defined.  At the moment it works because we like
and trust each other all around.  But when speaking of
cross-institutional accountability, these are not things we can just
count on.

I am not saying we need big heavy duty cross-accountability mechanisms
that oppress us and keep us from doing the stuff we need to do.

I am saying we need to formally consider the multistakeholder
cross-accountability (or put another way the IANA aggregate function
accountability) issues together with the multistakeholder IST process.


avri


On 23-Jul-14 18:03, Russ Housley wrote:
> Avri:
> 
>> For me, as an example at this point, I see breakage on things like the
>> self established ability of the IETF to unilaterally decide that a
>> protocol mandates removing labels from the list of available TLD labels.
>>
>> As a long time participant in the IETF, I see how natural this decision
>> is for the the IETF and a part of me cheers at the simplicity of this
>> solution for any number of issues.
>>
>> As a member of the ICANN GNSO Council I am outraged at the idea because
>> it is a policy decision that the technical arm of the enterprise has no
>> business making.
> 
> I cannot imagine such a thing happening without coordination.  There was coordination before ".local" was selected by the technical community.  The coordination turned out to be straightforward because ".local" was on the list that ICANN was not allowed to use.
> 
> I'd like to see a process for this coordination written down, but I am not worried about "unilateral" decisions.
> 
> Russ
>