Re: IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-rfc2050bis-

Hi Steve,
At 01:42 21-05-2013, Steve Crocker wrote:
> I want to share two thoughts, one about the role of the IETF, ICANN 
> and other organizations within the Internet ecosystem, and one about Whois.
> The great strength of the IETF is it's a forum for technical people 
> to come together, work out the details of protocols, and publish 
> consensus documents.  The IETF does not have any formal powers 
> granted by legal authorities.  IETF standards are effective because 
> they're accepted and they work, not because they're imposed on 
> anyone.  IETF standards are respected around the world because they 
> embody the wisdom and experience of the technical community.  No one 
> is obliged to use the protocols created within the IETF, but, of 
> course, a huge portion of the world does use these protocols.
IETF standards are  "de facto" standards.  It is doubtful whether 
some of the RFCs embody the wisdom and experience of the IETF 
community.  Nobody may be obliged to use these "standards".  However, 
do people have a choice?  How would I contact the IETF if my mail 
server uses another "standard"?
> Like the IETF, ICANN is also an open organization.  ICANN meetings 
> are free, and a veritable ocean of documents are published 
> regularly, many in multiple languages to increase availability.
I note that IETF meetings are not free.  Everyone can claim to be open.

> ICANN is purposefully organized to include participation from a 
> range of communities, e.g. business, civil society, governments, and 
> the technical community.  As I write this, I am at a retreat for the 
> ICANN Board focusing on strategic planning.  One of the seats on the 
> Board is allocated to a liaison from the IETF, and thus I am 
> actually sitting at the time I drafted this note in between Thomas 
> Narten and Jonne Soininen, the outgoing and incoming IETF liaisons 
> to the ICANN Board.
There are currently three comments about the proposed Whois 
Information Status Policy ( 
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/wisp-10may13-en.htm 
).  There's more comments than that for some IETF Last Calls (e.g. 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg79366.html 
).  The IETF Chair posted an article on his blog.  There is a long 
thread about it ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg78984.html 
).  The ICANN range of communities seem to be having problems sending 
mail as I don't see any trace of their participation.
If I want to know what the IESG is up to, I read a web page and I find:

  "abstract: the draft does stuff, it doesn't 'set out to' do stuff, 
at least not anymore"
>  of the IETF experience that "let's send it over to the IETF" 
> doesn't work.  The IETF isn't a standing army ready to do ours or 
> anyone else's work.  Rather, I say, it's a place where the relevant 
> people can get together to get their work done.  And, indeed, a 
> number of ICANN people
Agreed.

>  actively participate in various IETF working groups.)
I do not see ICANN people participating in an IETF Last Call.  I 
would not call it active participation.
> The roster of topics active within ICANN at any given time is fully 
> documented and publicized, and I invite anyone who is interested to 
> participate.  We listen to everyone, and we publish tentative 
> results, tentative policies, etc. for everyone to critique.
I am curious about where the ICANN "process" is documented.  I could 
not find anything that looks like RFC 2026.
> within the generic top level domains.  The country code top level 
> domains are roughly the same number, and their Whois structures and 
> policies are each controlled by the individual ccTLD operator and 
> their communities.
With all due respect I find it hard to believe that Whois structures 
and policies are controlled by the respective communities.
> and think through whether we might be better served by a revised 
> system.  An expert working group was assembled and is currently 
> working through these issues.  Its output will be a consideration of 
> the issues and recommendations for further work.  It is not yet 
> clear whether the result of this effort will lead to a large change, 
> a small change, or no change at all.  What is clear is that the 
> results of this working group will become fully public, and any 
> decisions will come through our usual policy development process.
The output of that working group was lacking.  If an IETF working 
group cannot produce useful results it should be shut down.  It seems 
that ICANN's measure is "public" and "process" instead of a 
results-oriented approach.
> The IETF, ICANN, the RIRs, ISOC, W3C and other organizations have 
> all arisen within the ecosystem that accompanies the growth and 
> prevalence of the Internet.  It is natural for there to be some 
> tension, competition and rivalry among our institutions, but we have 
> all been part of the same grand enterprise, we all share the same 
> core values, and we all work toward the same goal of an open, 
> innovative, expanding Internet.
Please note that I can only speak for myself.  I don't see any 
reflection of the "functional geographic, and cultural diversity of 
the Internet  at all levels of policy development and 
decision-making" in the IETF.  The IETF does not share that core 
value.  I did not find anything in IETF documents about "depending on 
market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive 
environment".  I did not see anything in IETF documents about 
introducing and promoting competition".  I don't see anything in IETF 
documents about promoting decisions based on expert advice.  Someone 
in the IETF will likely correct me if I am incorrect about all this.
If there are statements in a document which appear to assert 
something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger 
in the way they are made it is possible to materially affect the 
outcome by commenting about that.  The IESG could ignore the comments 
if it wishes.  That might not be a good idea though as something can 
be done about it.
ICANN's curse is having a community where people might burn it to the 
ground to get what they want.  That's possible in the IETF too.  The 
IETF's curse is having this mailing list.
I gather that everyone is aware that civil society has been somewhat 
uncivil lately.  That society has not made any significant negative 
comments about the IETF.  It has made negative comments about other 
organizations.  It is left to the reader to draw his or her conclusions.
Regards,
-sm