Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

Avri Doria <> Wed, 23 July 2014 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12761A0270 for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HRNAqK-LMvNe for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8BC1A00F9 for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6NLFWS2031629 for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:15:32 -0400
Received: (qmail 5319 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jul 2014 21:15:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( by 0 with ESMTPA; 23 Jul 2014 21:15:32 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:15:31 -0400
From: Avri Doria <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140722-1, 07/22/2014), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
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 21:15:35 -0000


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.

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?

This is breakage.

Likewise if ICANN were to start making technical decisions and deciding
to use protocols designed in places other than the IETF, or where to
just start modifying IETF protocols without any consideration of IETF
perogative of change control, I expect many in this group would be

To whom is ICANN accountable in making this decisions?  Just itself?

(yes there are liaisons and that is part of the accountability
structure, but it too exists between the silos being defined by the ICG)

If we have no common accountability mechanisms, each of the groups can
do what it pleases willy nilly without any support or buy in by other

I am sure others from outside of the IETF and ICANN bubbles can come up
with other scenarios where the policy decision made in the act of
deciding between protocol trades off  do not take sufficient account of
the concerns of users or others.

Though rarely if ever exercised, there is a current point of common
accountability where everyone could run to.  It is needed and I can't
see how this process will get global buy in without one.

If ain't broke ... doesn't work for most of the world, because most of
the world see breakage, even if insiders normally don't.