Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

Eliot Lear <> Wed, 23 July 2014 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B731B28B2 for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uR-N_sAFYD9N for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC4D71B2833 for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1797; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406152444; x=1407362044; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h6LXR/7VPHe/3S+5DoZgpnh8bYHmvJxSoYuHYCUZzCY=; b=ZjVfAQu0LSDmz7SWxVRR4QQuHqsmWcL2lYBp6TZ+h1SEVw4KAiDSiTBB QzwBnoPeOhNSIzw8NrOuCmYkBMeuoWmlwAI0RC+cVhqh3dpoGdoT9HfOG FHmXTeHun39RMKSBWZ4BiPBKwmX+6aI1YUVvIRaiakKzOmao7oeRU3N2M M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,720,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="43189664"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2014 21:53:58 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6NLrtLq012343; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:53:56 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:53:54 -0400
From: Eliot Lear <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Avri Doria <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community
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: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:54:05 -0000

Hi Avri,

On 7/23/14, 5:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> On 23-Jul-14 16:43, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> It would be absurd to define new mechanisms if the existing ones are
>> fully satisfactory.
> ah the old 'if it ain't broke' conundrum.
> Thing is, while it is not broken for some, it is broken for others.
> 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.

"Unilaterally" implies that somehow the community isn't involved in the
> 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.
> To whom is the IETF accountable in making this decision?  Just itself?

The community and through its leadership through the NOMCOM process,
which also takes into account community views.  But to be specific, when
the IETF steps in and reserves a name, it should do so only to avoid
technical breakage.  Can you provide an example where the IETF got
involved where that wasn't the case?  Also, did you appeal any decision
the IESG took in this regard?

> This is breakage.

What would be breakage would be if the IETF entered such a debate
without technical ground or if the IETF *didn't* enter the debate when
there was technical breakage at risk.

But even if the example you cited was broken, we have an appropriate
means to fix it, complete with accountability.