Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Mon, 21 July 2014 18:12 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 5A6A81A0175 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.465
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 YefXtv88OH3A for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F61A1A00B5 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.203]) by atl4mhob12.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6LIBwta019780 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:11:58 -0400
Received: (qmail 9487 invoked by uid 0); 21 Jul 2014 18:11:58 -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; 21 Jul 2014 18:11:58 -0000
Message-ID: <53CD57E8.4000909@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:11:52 -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
To: 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>
In-Reply-To: <9045EC0A-E123-4CDC-B87F-5BC32C644C85@istaff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140721-0, 07/21/2014), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/hmwKD-6SLbvxO_o1E_iLuVA1Fzk
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: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:12:04 -0000

Hi,

On 21-Jul-14 12:37, John Curran wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> > There are cross over concerns, for example in ICANN the Advisory
>> > Committees (At Large, Government, Security etc) have purview to advise
>> > on addresses as well as numbers and even parameters when it concerns
>> > tech that will be used to manage those names and numbers.

> Could you elaborate some on the above concepts?  I understand how there is 
> potential for consultation with such advisory committees if considered 
> appropriate by the ICANN Board (and as provided for in the ASO Global Policy 
> Development process), but the more typical method of engagement is directly 
> in the policy development processes taking place in each RIR region... in 
> this way, the input is considered closer to those affected by the outcome.  


The ASO is part of ICANN.  Anything it does, is open to comment by any
of the Adivisory Committees (AC).  I am assuming that the ASO and the
NRO are not identical as they both got seats on the ICG.  That indicates
that there are ICANN concerns with numbers that may be more
appropriately dealt by ICANN participants.

I understand that the RIRs all have their own regional participants, but
at the global level, there is very little stakeholder participation,
with the ICANN Advisory Committees being the only possible venue for
such concerns.  doea the NRO provide a multistakeholder venue at the
global level or is that the task of the ASO?  Because the ASO is part of
ICANN, the ACs have a voice in their activities and thus have a say in
the accountability methods for those issues.

On a specific example that I pay more attention to than numbers, the
IETF has recently asserted its ability to take names out of the general
pool of labels available for TLDs by declaring them to be protocol
artifacts, i.e. RFC 6761 on Special Use Names.  To assert IETF having
full control of this interface without any accountability to others is
problematic.  While this may just be an edge case from the IETF protocol
perspective, it could could be a huge issue from the ICANN perspective.

It is just not as simple as one group per each issue.   And I am sure
that as we go on, we will find other issues of commonality that need to
be explored.

And I still don't know who submits proposals on the .arpa, or .int issue
and the root server issues.

In a world where the various tech and the various policy issues are so
intertwined and interdependent, I think siloing is risky and should be
avoided.

avri

BTW, i have sent too many messages to this list today and figure i
better stop before someone speaks to me sternly.