Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Tue, 22 July 2014 01:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@istaff.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 EAFB11A01E1 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 GHi0LGOZb80y for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6680C1A0197 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-108-56-179-253.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([108.56.179.253] helo=[192.168.1.10]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jcurran@istaff.org>) id 1X9OUE-000Gll-UU; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:03:23 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Originating-IP: 108.56.179.253
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+jaIBaiNi856yY5ztmHspw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <53CD8F41.9060909@gih.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:03:20 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3683599A-0C7F-4556-9B46-4C41444D0424@istaff.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>
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/l4jhAHnRD4hs-6TKpmBZkWANDwk
Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Avri Doria <avri@acm.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: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:03:27 -0000

On Jul 21, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
> On 21/07/2014 21:48, John Curran wrote:
>> It's much simpler if you look at things one parameter space at a time: 
>> who created it, what technical reservations does it have, is there a 
>> general purpose portion & if so who is the delegated policy authority, 
>> what entity administers the resulting policy, and what party performs 
>> registry operations/publication for the entire parameter space?  The 
>> general purpose DNS and IP registries are only portions are subsets 
>> of the entire registry spaces; keeping that in mind may help quite a
>> bit with clarity of roles.
> 
> Is there going to also be a study of accountability mechanisms for each
> of the parties administering each parameter space?

Olivier - 
 
As I understand it, we have been discussing the charter of the 
"IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)", which 
is responsible for coordinating in the formation of a plan for 
the transitioning of NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions.

The IANA Functions are administrative/clerical registry functions
for all of the parameter spaces, including protocol parameters
in general, and the general purpose portions of the DNS and IP
address spaces.  All of these are administered by the "IANA"
(by a team of folks within ICANN); if the ICG does its job,
the resulting plan will cover (as your state) the "accountability 
mechanisms for each of the parties administering each parameter 
space", but in this case, the administration is being done by 
all the same party, i.e. ICANN in its performance as the IANA.

I believe what you meant to ask is a significantly different 
question regarding study of accountability mechanisms for the 
_policy authority and policy development_ aspects of each of
the parameter spaces.   

I know that ICANN has kicked off an ICANN Accountability effort 
which presumably will encompass such with respect to its DNS policy 
efforts...  With respect to policy authority and relationships 
for the address parameter spaces, the 5 RIRs have stated that 
"we believe than a review is appropriate at this time, prior to 
the expected NTIA transition, along with reviews by each of the 
RIRs of their own accountability mechanisms."  
<https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRO-to-ICANN-Accountability-2014066.pdf>

As with regard to accountability mechanisms for the technical 
protocol parameter spaces created by the IETF, I do not know if 
any review is planned or even warranted.  Protocol use is nominally 
a voluntary choice, and to the extent that the IETF predominantly 
sticks to technical criteria and its open & transparent development 
processes, it should be the rightful authority for any registries 
created out of that process.  I guess if the  IETF were to make a
habit of embedding social policy aspects into its protocol design, 
one could argue that its processes and accountability mechanisms 
become a valid item to review, but the IETF hasn't historically 
been embedding public policy values into its protocol designs...
(and any claim that the present day NTIA contract provides a
"accountability mechanism" in this regard is specious.) 

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.