Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christian,
At 03:24 10-07-2014, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
>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.

I don't think that the IETF (the word does not include the IAB) is in 
danger.  As mentioned above this is ICANN; parental guidance is advised.

>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)

The IETF does not have any responsibility.  The IESG may receive 
questions if there is a problem with the protocol registry.

My guess is that there is a view that the IETF can be used to solve 
problems with the other IANA Functions.  The current IETF position is 
that those issues are not an IETF matter.  Anyone disagreeing with 
that can talk to Mr Housley.

>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.

I would not describe the IETF as a bottom-up community.  As I think 
about all this the words "welfare state for the rich" comes to my mind.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

P.S. I made a mistake in a previous message about the number of IAB 
members.  There were two IAB members who were ignored.