--On Thursday, March 05, 2015 09:00 -0800 manning bill
<bmanning(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
...
(I'll say that 2870bis is on thin ice, since the IETF/IAB
have no leverage on root server operators. This community can
pontificate at length, but the actual operations will dictate,
not some wish list from an "arms-length" standards body…
Just sayin')
Bill,
Addressing this one issue only:
(1) Yes.
(2) On the other hand, RSSAC and/or "the root server operators"
have never been what I think are called "multistakeholder
consensus bodies". Arguably, neither is the IETF but there is
definitely a difference in terms of conditions for entry into
the group and openness of participation and the consensus
process. So, especially in the middle of controversies about
IANA transition and accountability of various parts of the
system, to say, effectively, "the root server operators will do
whatever they feel like and no one has any leverage on them" is
an invitation to demands for policy oversight of RSSAC and the
root server operations process by folks who represent a broader
stakeholder base.
Perhaps the "Caucus" is intended to serve that multistakeholder
role, but it isn't clear that it can do anything other than
advise and its membership is appointed by the RSSAC, not the
broader community.
If you and/or the root server operations community don't want to
risk ending up in a multistakeholder situation that it can't
control, some explicit respect for guidance from the IAB and/or
IETF might serve that community's interests in the long term.
Indeed, if I were part of that community and wanted to see more
or less the status quo preserved, I'd be looking to replaced or
supplement 2870bis with an explicit MOU or other agreement about
IETF and/or IAB review or supervision. However obnoxious that
might be, I'm certain it would be preferable to effective
oversight by some body dominated by ICANN politics.
best,
john