Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 25 July 2014 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 240871A01A8 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 VuoxcS6NlbAx for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 666EF1A01A9 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id l18so4029305wgh.13 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vCByLyamVqJJTzRVTxtsTbJUslrNqtiy7L3X6XFM4sE=; b=iaV3Hq3ZnZzr+SqGynuNZjY4j1h4w/rJhdlH36qCWEjNzSYrArBXlhjAkE8qfaKQUe drMFQetT4oJXYbkkYmWao3oJsWFX7p2xRysIAE88z9D0c6sTRUIa6LsD8EGSWJj0N5VF AqHL5zssR1l47b+oMiJQvwG8GwMQ89Utoa4Wz/4AF0VxwSSUYAeZVEnBTONm+RrUTo0P lO9JWhzibwRw6ih/CV2c6lG3JddV/swC9FFYFf2/F/gWTmFKYIBvJkisYI4SF9qzShPT w8nA0dHluGGx//k23dBcickUNlaOjA751B2SQBnzRU+oo5M2t3/fwJb13f3b2w9dWVEJ P+vQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.60.35 with SMTP id e3mr21585716wjr.12.1406287757614; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [31.133.136.182] (dhcp-88b6.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.136.182]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u10sm4850406wix.14.2014.07.25.04.29.15 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53D23F93.4050002@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:29:23 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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> <53D016B6.20200 00@gih.com> <53D01E6B.8020606@gmail.com> <53D025F3.5050708@acm.org> <53D02828.1030805@gmail.com> <53D02D53.6070501@acm.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20140724012237.0ce22978@resistor.net> <9DBA0ECE-D26D-463F-858A-B990B68BDDD1@istaff.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20140724084607.0bb21040@elandnews.com> <9A1009CB-2617-4809-A318-11DCD34E6504@istaff.org> <53D1C521.3030809@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <53D1C521.3030809@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/iDChpIuukNaKI0OzDyNX6alLjR4
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, internetgovtech@iab.org
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: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:29:22 -0000

> ICANN is working on a new round of gTLDs or some such. Of course they
> exclude already reserved TLDs, but not stuff that might be coming up
> (because they don't know it).

That's already a failure of coordination.

> Please note that "we can talk to each other" doesn't work here; the example is explicitly constructed that way :-(. 

But that is in fact the only answer in any such situation; it will
work because it has to work.

The saying in English "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it"
applies, in my opinion. We can't plan for every possible case.

Regards
   Brian

On 25/07/2014 14:46, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> On 2014/07/25 05:52, John Curran wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:08 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
>>> At 07:16 24-07-2014, John Curran wrote:
> 
>>>> Now it is true that these policies are generally technical in nature
>>>> and
>>>> tend to avoid "public policy" positions, but that is not a hard
>>>> requirement
>>>> for either IETF protocols or the associated registries.  For
>>>> example, it
>>>> is possible for the IETF to define a protocol (e.g. an enhancement
>>>> to DNS)
>>>> whereby the protocol itself has some embedded rules for certain
>>>> identifiers
>>>> (e.g. the string "curran" shall always return empty set on any
>>>> query...)
>>>
>>> Ok.
>>
>> i.e. technical registry policy is part of protocol specification; the
>> IETF
>> can indeed make a mess of either, but is inclined to try and make it
>> so the
>> resulting protocol & registry useful for the Internet.
> 
> I think that in general, IETF caring about the technical stuff, and
> ICANN about the political stuff, should work out fine, even where these
> overlap (i.e. TLDs).
> 
> But imagine the following, somewhat imaginary but not totally improbable
> scenario:
> 
> The IETF is working on some technology that requires a couple of TLDs to
> be reserved for a special purpose. The technology is already partially
> deployed, but not yet extremely widely, and the IETF is standardizing it
> and fixing some stuff that needs fixing for wider deployment.
> 
> ICANN is working on a new round of gTLDs or some such. Of course they
> exclude already reserved TLDs, but not stuff that might be coming up
> (because they don't know it).
> 
> Now assume that at some point rather late in the game, it gets
> discovered that some names on both sides clash. ICANN already has
> accepted a (significant) amount of money and made some firm promises.
> The IETF technology is already well deployed, and fixes may be costly
> and time-consuming. Each organization and its constituents thinks that
> they were first and therefore think they have priority, and provide
> ample material to support their claims.
> 
> What, if any, provisions are there currently to avoid such a problem?
> What, if any, additional provisions would we need to avoid such a
> problem in the future.
> 
> Please note that "we can talk to each other" doesn't work here; the
> example is explicitly constructed that way :-(.
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internetgovtech mailing list
> Internetgovtech@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech
> .
>