Subject: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

From: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 12:22:45 -0400

Hi,

Bearing in mind the context below, it seems to us that the text 
currently under discussion for consensus (with thanks to Brian and 
Richard, all) is:

“The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going 
forward, as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned.  The 
IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 
of the proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, 
Section V of the proposal as well.”

Assuming no further objection/amendment, that is the text we will call 
on Friday.

Thanks,

Leslie&Marc.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 21 Aug 2015, at 11:07, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As noted in the meeting minutes I referred people to, and the meeting 
> materials, any WG input must be framed in the context of our Charter, 
> specifically:
>
> Should proposals made by other communities regarding the
> transition of other IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter
> registries or the IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them.
>
> Any *other* perspectives you have about support for the ICG proposal 
> may be submitted individually to the ICG process.  Indeed, we 
> encourage people to do exactly that.
>
> The question before the group is whether the text outlined is 
> appropriate and acceptable (only) within the context of what this 
> group was chartered to look at.
>
> Thanks,
> Leslie.
>
>
> -- 
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
> [email-masked]
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 21 Aug 2015, at 10:34, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As noted in the minutes from today’s IANAPLAN WG virtual interim 
>> meeting, participants agreed on a brief message in support of the 
>> collected ICG proposal.
>>
>> While the IAB is preparing a wider response, the proposal is that the 
>> IANAPLAN WG will communicate to the ICG the following message related 
>> to the IANAPLAN’s work output (part of the IETF contribution):
>>
>> “The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal 
>> going forward.  The IETF raised two transition points that are 
>> mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We would ask that they 
>> be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.”
>>
>> This message is to confirm WG consensus on the proposed action via 
>> this e-mail list.  All WG participants are encouraged to review the 
>> meeting minutes for further elaboration of the discussion around this 
>> text.  If you have any disagreement with it, please share your 
>> comment to this list by noon EDT (16h00 UTC) Friday August 28, 2015.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Leslie, for Leslie&Marc.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Leslie Daigle
>> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
>> [email-masked]
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:29:11 +0100

I'm fine with this version. (It's better than the original, thanks.)

S

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:38:18 +0200

Hi Leslie,

> Section V of the proposal as well.”

I don't think this text is there yet, so please class this as an
objection.  The issue remains that this reads as though we are approving
a single portion of text that we have contributed.  Realistically I do
not know how the ICG would take such a comment.  It is akin to saying
nothing, since support for the text we contributed is well known.  And
therefore, we would be better off saying nothing.  Rather than do that,
however, I propose an alternative, as follows:

    The IETF IANAPLAN working group has reviewed the ICG proposal and
    found no concerns relating to our activities, and therefore support
    its advancement on that basis.  The IETF raised two transition
    points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We
    would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the
    proposal as well.

This makes clear that we are not making statements beyond how this
proposal will impact us.

Eliot

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 12:41:03 -0400

Hi,

Makes sense.

avri

> Assuming no further objection/amendment, that is the text we will call

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

---

From: Richard Hill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:03:06 +0200

I object to Eliot's version, because it implies that this group has studied all parts of the ICG proposal and approves all parts.

Best Richard

On August 24, 2015 6:38:18 PM CEST, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
>going
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:06:22 +0200

Richard,

On 8/24/15 7:03 PM, Richard Hill wrote:
> I object to Eliot's version, because it implies that this group has
> studied all parts of the ICG proposal and approves all parts.
>

I don't find this a credible objection.  For one thing, you have not
shown how the proposal would adversely impact the IETF.  Please ground
your criticism in specifics as relates to the IETF.

Eliot

>>     currently under discussion for consensus (with thanks to Brian
>>     and Richard, all) is:
>>
>>     going forward, as far as the Protocol Parameters function is
>>     concerned.  The IETF raised two transition points that are
>>     mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We would ask that
>>     they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.”
>
>     objection.  The issue remains that this reads as though we are
>     approving a single portion of text that we have contributed. 
>     Realistically I do not know how the ICG would take such a
>     comment.  It is akin to saying nothing, since support for the text
>     we contributed is well known.  And therefore, we would be better
>     off saying nothing.  Rather than do that, however, I propose an
>     alternative, as follows:
>
>         The IETF IANAPLAN working group has reviewed the ICG proposal
>         and found no concerns relating to our activities, and
>         therefore support its advancement on that basis.  The IETF
>         raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph
>         3062 of the proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in
>         Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.
>
>
> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

---

From: Richard Hill <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:18:32 +0200

That's not my point. My point is that this group has not considered the other parts of the proposal, nor should it. 

So this group should not make a comment that can be understood as a comment on the other parts of the proposal.

Best Richard

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:03:58 +0200

On 8/24/15 7:18 PM, Richard Hill wrote:
> That's not my point. My point is that this group has not considered
> the other parts of the proposal, nor should it.

Andrew has already responded to you on that point.  And some of us
*have* considered the text on the whole.

>
> So this group should not make a comment that can be understood as a
> comment on the other parts of the proposal.

Fundamentally the question is the same: do we believe the proposal
should go forward or not?

Eliot

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:19:24 +0100

> *have* considered the text on the whole.

I think Eliot is clearly correct here. (Even though I prefer Leslie's
text over Eliot's.)

S.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:25:26 +1200

> I think Eliot is clearly correct here. (Even though I prefer Leslie's

Concur. The less said, the better, as far as *this WG* is concerned.

I hope and trust that the IAB will tackle the broader issue, and I think
the community part of that discussion belongs on [email-masked].

    Brian

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 01:57:34 +0200

Richard,

the point is not to tell the truth. The truth is that the affinity 
group believes and has decided that Dilma's friends should control 
the internet. Money first. You cannot change that.

This is not a big issue, however, if you accept that the internet+web 
are only two overlay network strata above the catenet of the people 
digital resources - that are politically and operationnally protected 
in being tied together by ITU members.

What we are confronted to is the end of long standing BUG they still 
try to make survive as a feature. The real problem, and it is not an 
easy one, is the transition from the IETF to the ITU-I (which to has 
to get an international charter first, along something like the 
Supreme Court's position.)

The Juges understood the Google & co API trick very well. The problem 
is that you cannot really trust the USG, the States, the people, even 
the Juges of the leading nation, etc. to win against ICANN/GAFAM and 
digital allies easily. Mostly because it is not easy for anyone to be 
sure he/she understands the interests of his/her would-be friends and 
could-be ennemies.

My rule of thumb is the WSIS one: to be on the users/people legal 
side. And in order to be sure of that, to really be one of them. A 
non-profit local digital service provider. I may be wrong and my 
architectural adaptation can be limited. However there are many 
others having better ideas than me. This is why, nothing should be 
considered which has not been "x-libed" first. Openly considered and 
experimented along an XLIBRE approach.

The network must be money neutral, i.e. you should be able to 
buy/sell any valued added service, encouraging innovaton, but the 
money MUST have the same value. loyal operations. One GAFAM Dollar 
MUST equal everyone else's Dollar. This was protected by technology 
and IAB in the initial NTIA schema. Now they want the technology and 
IAB to be an ICANN customer. Next, they will want the ITU to be an 
ICANN customer too.

jfc

---

From: Seth Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 00:32:23 -0400

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Richard Hill <[email-masked]> wrote:
> That's not my point. My point is that this group has not considered the
> other parts of the proposal, nor should it.

:-|

Nor should it?

If the group is issuing a statement on the ICG proposal, it should be
either about the whole proposal, or how the parts relate.  Otherwise,
there's no point in the group commenting.

> on the other parts of the proposal.

Sure the group could comment on the other parts as elements of an
interdependent whole -- if the group has special things to say of that
sort from its perspective.

The group could also refrain from commenting, on some theory that it
should focus on "its task" and not lend its imprimatur beyond that,
but that doesn't necessarily follow in principle.  The group is
contributing a part of a whole, and may reasonably be expected to
comment on the whole, not the least in terms of how the part and the
whole interrelate.

Seth

>> I don't find this a credible objection.  For one thing, you have not shown
>> how the proposal would adversely impact the IETF.  Please ground your
>> criticism in specifics as relates to the IETF.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>>
>> Best Richard
>>
>>> Bearing in mind the context below, it seems to us that the text currently
>>> under discussion for consensus (with thanks to Brian and Richard, all) is:
>>>
>>> forward, as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned.  The IETF
>>> raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the
>>> proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the
>>> proposal as well.”
>>>
>>>
>>> objection.  The issue remains that this reads as though we are approving a
>>> single portion of text that we have contributed.  Realistically I do not
>>> know how the ICG would take such a comment.  It is akin to saying nothing,
>>> since support for the text we contributed is well known.  And therefore, we
>>> would be better off saying nothing.  Rather than do that, however, I propose
>>> an alternative, as follows:
>>>
>>> The IETF IANAPLAN working group has reviewed the ICG proposal and found
>>> no concerns relating to our activities, and therefore support its
>>> advancement on that basis.  The IETF raised two transition points that are
>>> mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We would ask that they be
>>> referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Ianaplan mailing list
>>> [email-masked]
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [email-masked]

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:58:15 +0200

Building on Brian's proposal that the less said, the better, an alternative would be to drop the first sentence altogether, so that the text would read:

“Regarding the draft ICG proposal, the IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.”

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 00:25
> To: Stephen Farrell; Eliot Lear; Richard Hill; Leslie Daigle
> (ThinkingCat); Ianaplan@Ietf. Org
> Cc: Marc Blanchet
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind
> Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
> 
> I hope and trust that the IAB will tackle the broader issue, and I
> think the community part of that discussion belongs on [email-masked].
> 
>     Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:59:26 +0200

But you have yet to raise a substantial objection to what was initially
proposed.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:03:27 +0200

By the way, Brian, same question: is there a specific issue in the
proposal that raises a concern with you with regard to the proposal
being advanced?

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:10:37 +0200

Both Brian and I have made the point that the initial proposal could be misunderstood to mean that this group has evaluated and supports the non-protocol parts of the proposal. That is a substantial objection.

Best,
Richard

> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 07:59
> To: Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie
> Daigle (ThinkingCat)'; 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'
> Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'
> > Building on Brian's proposal that the less said, the better, an
> alternative would be to drop the first sentence altogether, so that the
> text would read:
> >
> > “Regarding the draft ICG proposal, the IETF raised two transition
> points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We would
> ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as
> well.”
> >
> > Best,
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >>> I think Eliot is clearly correct here. (Even though I prefer
> >>> Leslie's text over Eliot's.)

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:13:50 +0200

Hi Richard,

As I wrote, some of us HAVE read the other community proposals.  But in
the spirit of compromise here is what I propose:

    While the IANAPLAN WG has not discussed the other two community
    proposals in depth, we support the ICG proposal being advanced on
    the whole.  The IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned
    in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal. We would ask that they be
    referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.

How is that?

Eliot

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:15:48 +0200

I cannot agree to that because I do not support the proposal as a whole going forward. You can look at the ICG site to see why I don’t support it.

Best,

Richard

From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 08:14
To: Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'; 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'
Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

Hi Richard,

As I wrote, some of us HAVE read the other community proposals.  But in the spirit of compromise here is what I propose:

While the IANAPLAN WG has not discussed the other two community proposals in depth, we support the ICG proposal being advanced on the whole.  The IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal. We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.

How is that?

Eliot

 
Best,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 07:59
To: Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie

Best,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 00:25
To: Stephen Farrell; Eliot Lear; Richard Hill; Leslie Daigle

That's not my point. My point is that this group has not

considered

 
I hope and trust that the IAB will tackle the broader issue, and I
think the community part of that discussion belongs on

[email-masked].

    Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:19:45 +0200

We do our work on IETF mailing lists, and you have previously written,
your concerns do not attach to the IETF.

Eliot

On 8/25/15 8:15 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
>
> I cannot agree to that because I do not support the proposal as a
> whole going forward. You can look at the ICG site to see why I don’t
> support it.
>
>  
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>  
>
> *From:*Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2015 08:14
> *To:* Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie
> *Cc:* 'Marc Blanchet'
> *Subject:* Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind
> As I wrote, some of us HAVE read the other community proposals.  But
> in the spirit of compromise here is what I propose:
>
> proposals in depth, we support the ICG proposal being advanced on the
> whole.  The IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in
> Paragraph 3062 of the proposal. We would ask that they be referenced
> in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.
>
> How is that?
>
> Eliot
>
>         [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>.
>
>                  
>
>                     Brian
>
>              
>
>          
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:23:44 +0200

If the matter is of no concern to the IETF, then why should the IETF comment at all?

In the spirit of compromise, I offer the following alternative:

“The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going forward, as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned.  The IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well. The IETF IANAPLAN working group is of the view that the other parts of the proposal would not have any impact on the IETF, so it expresses no views with respect to them.”

Best,

Richard

From: Ianaplan [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 08:20
To: Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'; 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'
Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

We do our work on IETF mailing lists, and you have previously written, your concerns do not attach to the IETF.

Eliot

Best,

Richard

Hi Richard,

How is that?

Eliot

 
Best,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 07:59
To: Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie

Best,
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 00:25
To: Stephen Farrell; Eliot Lear; Richard Hill; Leslie Daigle

considered

 

[email-masked].

    Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:30:58 +0200

> If the matter is of no concern to the IETF, then why should the IETF

I didn't say it is of no concern to the IETF.  Clearly that's not true
because we spun up this huge effort in the first place.  Now we are
nearing the end of the process.  Do we support the document being
advanced to the next step or not?  You have clearly indicated "not". 
Fair enough.  I think John Klensin seems to be of the same opinion, but
I'm not sure.

Not supporting the process going forward would imply that something
perverse has happened along the way to such an extent that we should
reverse our position, in which case I would like that called out.

Eliot

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:43:47 +0200

>Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 08:31
>I didn't say it is of no concern to the IETF.  Clearly that's not true because we spun up >this huge effort in the first place.  

Yes, for the protocol parameters. But I haven't seen any discussion on this list regarding the other functions, nor on ICANN accountability.

SNIP

>Not supporting the process going forward would imply that something perverse has
> happened along the way to such an extent that we should reverse our position,

No. This group is consistent: it supports the protocols part of the ICG proposal because that part is exactly what this group agreed by rough consensus, and it request that the bit in paragraph 3062 be referenced also elsewhere.

This group has not discussed the other parts of the ICG proposal, so there is no reason why this group should take a position regarding those parts of the proposal.

> in which case I would like that called out.

Does the above help?

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:09:35 +0200

Hi Richard,

On 8/25/15 8:43 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
> This group is consistent: it supports the protocols part of the ICG proposal because that part is exactly what this group agreed by rough consensus, and it request that the bit in paragraph 3062 be referenced also elsewhere.
>

The proposal will either go forward or not.  There are not THREE
proposals at this point.  Rather there is a single proposal.  In as much
as you had concerns about the individual components those rightfully
belong within the components as we have said all along, for the very
reasons you did not raise those issues here: you were found in the rough
in those other communities.  Further, as I wrote, a number of us have
read all the proposals, with an eye toward finding overlap.

At this point in time the issue for the IETF is really quite simple: do
we want the proposal to go forward or not?  That is what this working
group is being asked for a position on.  So, one more attempt at text:

    The IETF IANAPLAN WG prefers that the ICG proposal be advanced, as
    no concerns have been raised that would impact standards development
    or the operation of the protocol parameters registries.  The IETF
    raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of
    the proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0,
    Section V of the proposal as well.  We take no position on the names
    or numbers community components.

Eliot

---

From: Seun Ojedeji <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:15:29 +0100

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The proposal will either go forward or not.  There are not THREE proposals
> at this point.  Rather there is a single proposal.  In as much as you had
> concerns about the individual components those rightfully belong within the
> components as we have said all along, for the very reasons you did not
> raise those issues here: you were found in the rough in those other
> communities.  Further, as I wrote, a number of us have read all the
> proposals, with an eye toward finding overlap.
>
> At this point in time the issue for the IETF is really quite simple: do we
> want the proposal to go forward or not?  That is what this working group is
> being asked for a position on.
>

This is how i also understand it. The IETF in my opinion is trying too much
to distant itself from the work of the other operational communities and i
don't think its helpful at all.

>   So, one more attempt at text:
>
> The IETF IANAPLAN WG prefers that the ICG proposal be advanced, as no
> concerns have been raised that would impact standards development or the
> operation of the protocol parameters registries.  The IETF raised two
> transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We
> would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as
> well.  We take no position on the names or numbers community components.
>
> Again FWIW and if the IETF is actually considering all views, i agree with
the proposed edit above

Regards

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>[email-masked]
<[email-masked]>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:20:31 +0200

Dear Eliot,

I continue to prefer the last proposal put forth by Leslie. I suggest that you and I agree to disagree and allow others to comment.

Best,

Richard

From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:10
To: Richard Hill; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Stephen Farrell'; 'Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)'; 'Ianaplan@Ietf. Org'
Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'
Subject: One more attempt at text (Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review)

Hi Richard,

 

The proposal will either go forward or not.  There are not THREE proposals at this point.  Rather there is a single proposal.  In as much as you had concerns about the individual components those rightfully belong within the components as we have said all along, for the very reasons you did not raise those issues here: you were found in the rough in those other communities.  Further, as I wrote, a number of us have read all the proposals, with an eye toward finding overlap.

At this point in time the issue for the IETF is really quite simple: do we want the proposal to go forward or not?  That is what this working group is being asked for a position on.  So, one more attempt at text:

The IETF IANAPLAN WG prefers that the ICG proposal be advanced, as no concerns have been raised that would impact standards development or the operation of the protocol parameters registries.  The IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the proposal as well.  We take no position on the names or numbers community components.

Eliot

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:03:00 -0400

On 25 Aug 2015, at 1:58, Richard Hill wrote:

> alternative would be to drop the first sentence altogether, so that 
> the text would read:
>

I think this one is too short. We shall support the whole initiative. 
This was also clear during the interim meeting.

Marc.

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:05:36 -0400

On 25 Aug 2015, at 5:15, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

>> This group is consistent: it supports the protocols part of the ICG 
>> proposal because that part is exactly what this group agreed by rough 
>> consensus, and it request that the bit in paragraph 3062 be 
>> referenced also elsewhere.
>>
>> This group has not discussed the other parts of the ICG proposal, so 
>> there is no reason why this group should take a position regarding 
>> those parts of the proposal.
>>
>>
>> proposals

<as individual> I agree with above. We shall demonstrate support of the 
overall initiative.

Marc.

>> proposal as

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:58:35 -0400

--On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 08:03 -0400 Marc Blanchet
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think this one is too short. We shall support the whole
> initiative. This was also clear during the interim meeting.

Marc,

Let me play devil's advocate and take a position somewhat
stronger than Richard's in that role and context.

First, I do not understand the basis for "we shall support the
whole initiative", nor am I sure what it covers.    Almost
certainly "supporting the whole initiative" is not within scope
for the WG, even the interpretation suggested by Andrew (with
which I largely agree).  Even if it were within scope, I haven't
see a consensus call on this mailing list for "support the whole
initiative", nor do the minutes of the interim seen to reflect
such a decision that could then be confirmed on this list. 

Second, even as someone who would prefer to see the US
Government's role in IANA transitioned out of existence, but
continuing to speak as devil's advocate,  I believe that a
reasonable person could come away from the three (or four if one
counts CWG and CCWG separately as may be appropriate) reports,
the process that led to them, the selection of newly-created (or
proposed) bodies, and the likely apportionment of power among
them with the conclusion that, while a transition is
appropriate, a transition that leaves all of the decision
authority in assorted ICANN entities, subsidiaries, and
appointees is not.  

That could lead to supplementing Richard's proposed, probably
over-narrow, statement

> "Regarding the draft ICG proposal, the IETF raised two
transition 
> well."

with something that could say "The WG continues to believe that
a transition away from a US Government role in IANA management
and oversight is appropriate, but has not reviewed or reached a
consensus conclusion about the particulars of the ICG proposal
not covered in our earlier remarks or above".

That would be harder to spin as "we support the whole plan" or
"we oppose the whole plan" because it is quite clear that we are
not taking a position.  It could be made even stronger by
reference to charter or scope, etc., but it is not clear to me
(even as devil's advocate) that is necessary.

But, if your position, either as co-chair or as an individual in
a way that would prevent you, as co-chair, from fairly
considering other points of view, is that "we" necessarily
"shall support the whole initiative", then I think we have at
least a point on which people can reasonably disagree or a real
problem.

best,
    john

---

From: "Richard Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:01:38 +0200

Building on John's suggestion below, how about the following:

"The IETF IANAPLAN working group supports the draft ICG proposal going
forward, as far as the Protocol Parameters function is concerned.  The IETF
raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the
proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the
proposal as well. The working group continues to believe that a transition
away from a US Government role in IANA management and oversight is
appropriate, but has not reviewed or reached a consensus conclusion about
the particulars of the ICG proposal not covered in our earlier remarks or
above."

Best,
Richard

> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John C
> Klensin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 16:59
> To: Marc Blanchet; Richard Hill
> Cc: Ianaplan@Ietf. Org; Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat); Eliot Lear;
> Stephen Farrell
> Let me play devil's advocate and take a position somewhat stronger than
> Richard's in that role and context.
> 
> certainly "supporting the whole initiative" is not within scope for the
> WG, even the interpretation suggested by Andrew (with which I largely
> agree).  Even if it were within scope, I haven't see a consensus call
> on this mailing list for "support the whole initiative", nor do the
> minutes of the interim seen to reflect such a decision that could then
> be confirmed on this list.
> 
> Second, even as someone who would prefer to see the US Government's
> role in IANA transitioned out of existence, but continuing to speak as
> devil's advocate,  I believe that a reasonable person could come away
> from the three (or four if one counts CWG and CCWG separately as may be
> appropriate) reports, the process that led to them, the selection of
> newly-created (or
> proposed) bodies, and the likely apportionment of power among them with
> the conclusion that, while a transition is appropriate, a transition
> that leaves all of the decision authority in assorted ICANN entities,
> subsidiaries, and appointees is not.
> 
> That could lead to supplementing Richard's proposed, probably over-
> narrow, statement
> 
> with something that could say "The WG continues to believe that a
> transition away from a US Government role in IANA management and
> oversight is appropriate, but has not reviewed or reached a consensus
> conclusion about the particulars of the ICG proposal not covered in our
> earlier remarks or above".
> 
> That would be harder to spin as "we support the whole plan" or "we
> oppose the whole plan" because it is quite clear that we are not taking
> a position.  It could be made even stronger by reference to charter or
> scope, etc., but it is not clear to me (even as devil's advocate) that
> is necessary.
> 
> But, if your position, either as co-chair or as an individual in a way
> that would prevent you, as co-chair, from fairly considering other
> points of view, is that "we" necessarily "shall support the whole
> initiative", then I think we have at least a point on which people can
> reasonably disagree or a real problem.
> 
> best,
>     john
>

---

From: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:58:35 -0400

To my reading, Richard’s draft response is in line with the scope of 
this WG’s remit.

[Richard proposed:]
> IETF
> the

I do, though, fear it reads a little piecemeal and puzzling.

Addressing the scope question head on, I could suggest:

The IETF IANAPLAN WG has reviewed the draft ICG proposal within the 
context of the WG’s charter (<ref>) — specifically, “Should 
proposals made by other communities regarding the transition of other 
IANA functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the 
IETF, the WG may also review and comment on them.”   The IETF IANAPLAN 
working group continues to believe that a transition away from a US 
Government role in IANA management and oversight is appropriate and 
confirms consensus of its participants that the draft proposal is not 
perceived to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function.    The 
IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 
of the proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, 
Section V of the proposal as well.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 25 Aug 2015, at 12:01, Richard Hill wrote:

> IETF
> the
>>> initiative.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:20:57 +0200

Hi Leslie,

On 8/25/15 6:58 PM, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:

> context of the WG’s charter (<ref>) — specifically, “Should proposals
> made by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA
> functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the IETF,
> the WG may also review and comment on them.”   The IETF IANAPLAN
> perceived to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function.   
> The IETF raised two transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph
> 3062 of the proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0,

For me this is ALMOST there.  I believe that our  remit extends beyond
protocol parameters but to address issues that may relate to their
access and use.  And so I would suggest the following as an alternative:

The IETF IANAPLAN WG has reviewed the draft ICG proposal within the
context of the WG’s charter (<ref>) — specifically, “Should proposals
made by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA
functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the IETF, the
WG may also review and comment on them.”   The IETF IANAPLAN working
group continues to believe that a transition away from a US Government
role in IANA management and oversight is appropriate and confirms
consensus of its participants that the draft proposal is not perceived
to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function or to interfere with
the development or safe use of IETF standards.    The IETF raised two
transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal. 
We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the
proposal as well.

Eliot

---

From: Andrei Robachevsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:06:22 +0200

Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote on 25/08/15 18:58:
> to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function.    The IETF
> proposal.  We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of
> the proposal as well.
> 
> 
> 

I think the combined proposal will work for the IETF and support this
statement.

Andrei

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:26:11 +0300

> We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the

This would work for me.

(We’re trying to find a very fine balance between how well the overall setup works for us vs. claiming something about the details of parts that do not affect us. Perhaps understandably, finding the right words is difficult. But I think this or something along these lines would be reasonable and accurate.)

Jari

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Aug 2015 15:45:18 -0000

This is OK for me too, it makes the limits of our approval reasonably clear.

>(We’re trying to find a very fine balance between how well the overall setup works for us vs. claiming
>something about the details of parts that do not affect us. Perhaps understandably, finding the right
>words is difficult. But I think this or something along these lines would be reasonable and accurate.)
>
>Jari
>
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>[Attachment type=application/pgp-signature, name=signature.asc]
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-