ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

IETF comments regarding my concerns

  • To: "Icg-Forum@Icann. Org" <icg-forum@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: IETF comments regarding my concerns
  • From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:58:30 +0100

There have been various comments on the IETF IANAPLAN mailing list regarding
my message titled "Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development

The responses range from "ignore the message", to "his process concerns are
not valid", to "his substantive concerns are not valid".

The first type of response is given at:


There are several examples of the second type of response.  As far as I can
tell, they are similar to the message that John Curran posted to the ICG
Forum list.  My rejoinder to that message is also posted on the ICG Forum
list. In essence, it is my view that those responses are not addressing my
fundamental point: absent a justification by the co-chairs, it is not
possible to know whether the issues that I raised were appropriately
considered when the co-chairs decided that rough consensus had been reached.

Similarly, I don't see how I can appeal the rough consensus call within the
IETF: since no justification was provided by the co-chairs for the call, I
have nothing to appeal against.

There are several examples of the third type of response.  A rather detailed
example is at:


That response explains in some detail the majority view.  But, as noted in
my rejoinder to John Curran's response, the IETF does not make decisions by
majority. So I don't see how a repetition of the majority view, no matter
how eloquent, addresses my concern.

My concern is that the majority appeared to be unwilling to consider legal
issues and legal solutions.  Given that the present arrangement is firmly
based on legal arrangements (the current IANA Functions Contract between
NTIA and ICANN), it seems to me that abandoning a binding legal framework is
a leap into the dark.  That leap may be justifiable, but, again, I didn't
see a justification by the co-chairs of the IETF group.

One comment suggested that the issues I raised were valid, but out of scope
for the IETF group, see:


The question of whether or not the issues were in scope had been raised in
the group and there was no consensus that they were out of scope. Indeed,
they were extensively discussed.  In any case, if the issues are considered
out of scope, then that could be the justification for the rough consensus
call.  But, again, the co-chairs did not provide a justification, so there
is no way to know why they decided that there was rough consensus.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy