Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available

Eric Brunner-Williams <> Mon, 21 July 2014 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D681A0031 for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.566
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mEbe3vvPwdqN for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 149731A026A for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frog.local ([]) by (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s6LHDq8Y037766 for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:14:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:13:47 -0700
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; 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"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available
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: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:15:23 -0000


When applicants (note the plural) sought single Han script character 
(necessarily 5 or more octets) labels in the IANA root, the IETF's 
liaison objected, and when an applicant sought to use only characters in 
the 0-9 range as a label in the IANA root, again, the IETF's liaison 
objected. Other examples of third-party involvement in the policy 
development of the GNSO (the only portion of ICANN with ByLaws 
responsibilities for domain name policy development) exist.

I appreciate that you were expressing your own opinion, and perhaps 
brevity could have been equally well served by "most names" or "names, 
with some exceptions", in your response to Avri.

Also, just to be somewhat formal, since the removal of the Protocol 
Supporting Organization from the ByLaws in 2003, other than the 
persuasive abilities of Liaisons, the "members" of the ICANN community 
-- and recall ICANN is a 501(c)(3) with no members -- however vigorous 
and vocal, are but (a very few) individuals with no particular status, 
commenting on policy developed by a ByLaws body, and so unlikely to 
participate effectively in review/purview/oversight/ghastly-error-avoidance.

Perhaps if you'd written "names fall squarely into the GNSO purview, 
no?" Then the locus of control, and the composition of the controllers 
-- that community -- would be unambiguous, and modulo persuasive 
Liaisons, supra, and the efforts of third-parties such as the GNSO, and 


On 7/21/14 7:31 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:26:08AM -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
>> I fund this silo approach very problematic and more likely to produce a
>> disjointed set of solutions
> Where would be the joint whereof you speak?  To put this another way,
> in my opinion protocol parameters belong squarely in the IETF's
> purview, and nobody else's.  Similarly, given the protocols, names
> fall squarely into ICANN's purview, no?  What is the "joint" that
> wouldn't be better solved (in the case of names) by working within the
> ICANN community?  Similarly for number resources, except a different
> community.
> I don't think there's any handed-down-ness about it.  This is a fully
> community-based approach, I think.
> A