Re: [IETF] IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)
On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:43 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: ... The point, Warren (and others) is that all of these are ICANN doing technical stuff and even technical standards in a broad sense of that term. Some of it is stuff that the IETF really should not want to do (I'm tempted to say avoid like the plague). Some of it probably should be here. As an outsider to both, there is a certain amount of stuff that has ended up in SSAC and even RSAC that might have been better located in SAAG or some IETF or NOG DNS operations group. I certainly won't argue that we've got the balance right. And I think it is unfortunate that the very early redesign of the original PSO had the side effect of making it hard or impossible to work out optimal boundaries and cross-review mechanisms with ICANN and that we are instead having a discussion more than a dozen years later about keeping ICANN from doing technical work or making standards. +1 (specifically - it is unfortunate that a more operational ICANN / IETF liaison did not emerge via the PSO structure) Let's not complicate things further by making the assumption that anything that reasonably looks like technical stuff belongs in the IETF and not in ICANN. It is likely to just make having the right conversations even harder. I believe that policy issues that are under active discussion in ICANN can also be discussed in the IETF, but there is recognition that ICANN is likely the more appropriate place to lead the process of consensus development and approval. I believe that protocol development that is under active discussion at the IETF can also discussed at ICANN, but there is recognition that the IETF is likely the appropriate place to lead the process of consensus development and approval. Note that there are lots of things that are neither policy nor protocols (e.g. operational best practices and guidelines) and while one can claim that either forum is valid, it really depends on the particular situation and where those folks who are closest to the problem actually choose to go with it (and depending on the protocol, that might not be either of the above...) /John Disclaimer: My views alone - YMMV.
Re: [IETF] IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)
On 6/21/13 10:46 , John Curran wrote: I believe that policy issues that are under active discussion in ICANN can also be discussed in the IETF, but there is recognition that ICANN is likely the more appropriate place to lead the process of consensus development and approval. I believe that protocol development that is under active discussion at the IETF can also discussed at ICANN, but there is recognition that the IETF is likely the appropriate place to lead the process of consensus development and approval. Note that there are lots of things that are neither policy nor protocols (e.g. operational best practices and guidelines) and while one can claim that either forum is valid, it really depends on the particular situation and where those folks who are closest to the problem actually choose to go with it (and depending on the protocol, that might not be either of the above...) /John Disclaimer: My views alone - YMMV. A version of these three paragraphs would make an excellent executive summary for the 2050bis Draft itself. -- David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
Re: [IETF] IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)
--On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:46 -0400 John Curran jcur...@istaff.org wrote: ... Let's not complicate things further by making the assumption that anything that reasonably looks like technical stuff belongs in the IETF and not in ICANN. It is likely to just make having the right conversations even harder. I believe that policy issues that are under active discussion in ICANN can also be discussed in the IETF, but there is recognition that ICANN is likely the more appropriate place to lead the process of consensus development and approval. I believe that protocol development that is under active discussion at the IETF can also discussed at ICANN, but there is recognition that the IETF is likely the appropriate place to lead the process of consensus development and approval. ... John, While I agree with the above (and am still trying to avoid carrying this conversation very far on the IETF list), I think another part of the puzzle is that there are also situations in which technical considerations imply real constraints on policy alternatives. Some obvious examples include physical constants like the speed of light, others, only slightly less obvious, include things like the design of the DNS as a simply hierarchy that cannot support symmetric aliases (i.e., anything that would support an actual came from function or a list of all of the names that point to a given note). The policy folks ignore those constraints, or treat them as subject to policy-making decisions at the risk of being ridiculous and/or causing considerable harm to the Internet. While they are less obvious in this community, I suggest it works the other way too -- there are policy and economic decisions and realities that are as much constraints on the technical solution space as those technical constrains are on the policy ones, with just about the same risks of ridiculousness or damage if they are ignored. That is, again, why it is so unfortunate that the original model of the IAB/PSO as one of ICANN's three everyone has to work together pillars was abandoned... and more unfortunate that it was replaced on the ICANN side by approximately nothing other than some committees and other bodies that could easily be ignored and on the IETF side by depending on individuals with feet in both camps to speak up. john
Re: [IETF] IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)
On Jun 21, 2013, at 2:56 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: While I agree with the above (and am still trying to avoid carrying this conversation very far on the IETF list), I think another part of the puzzle is that there are also situations in which technical considerations imply real constraints on policy alternatives. Some obvious examples include physical constants like the speed of light, others, only slightly less obvious, include things like the design of the DNS as a simply hierarchy that cannot support symmetric aliases (i.e., anything that would support an actual came from function or a list of all of the names that point to a given note). The policy folks ignore those constraints, or treat them as subject to policy-making decisions at the risk of being ridiculous and/or causing considerable harm to the Internet. While they are less obvious in this community, I suggest it works the other way too -- there are policy and economic decisions and realities that are as much constraints on the technical solution space as those technical constrains are on the policy ones, with just about the same risks of ridiculousness or damage if they are ignored. Agreed. I believe that there is a better understanding of this situation now than in the earlier days (including among governments who are beginning to seriously engage with ICANN's GAC.) That is, again, why it is so unfortunate that the original model of the IAB/PSO as one of ICANN's three everyone has to work together pillars was abandoned... and more unfortunate that it was replaced on the ICANN side by approximately nothing other than some committees and other bodies that could easily be ignored and on the IETF side by depending on individuals with feet in both camps to speak up. It's difficult to lay blame anyone from walking away from the PSO approach; in ICANN's early years it always seemed to be a vestigial structure serving little purpose. The lack of apparent value was amplified when ICANN changed its proposed structure (from being oversight and coordination between true independent supporting organizations) into a heavily DNS-focused direction by opting to absorb the DNSO internally in the initial Singapore meeting. If ICANN were operating solely in a coordination and oversight role, with policy, process, and protocol development done in supporting organizations, then it would have been a lot easier to make the liaison and coordination function successful, both between pillars (DNSO, ASO, PSO) and to/from governmental types. For some reason, doing that in the margin of a 97% DNS-focused omnibus policy/oversight/coordination/operation organization doesn't provide the necessary level of attention. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Apologies for length; I lacked the time to write a shorter reply.
