[CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

[Chartier, Mike S]

Thanks very much for the explanation.
I not sure I see how "If the IETF decided to move all functions, then the removal of "such as" would make the clause false"?
The statement says ICANN provides those services "requested by" IETF, doesn't that leave the decision to IETF?


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 8:52 AM
To: Chartier, Mike S
Cc: Burr, Becky; iab at iab.org; Accountability Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 01:12:19PM +0000, Chartier, Mike S wrote:
> Is there a reason why we need "Internet protocol development organizations, such as" ?
> 
> Why can't it just say:
> 
> 4.  Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, with respect to protocol ports and parameters, ICANN's Mission is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by the Internet Engineering Task Force.
> 

I don't _think_ that would be a problem for me or for the IAB, but I am sensitive that some apparently believe the IAB is trying to tell ICANN what its mission is.  We're not, but I don't want to give anyone such an impression.

The Time Zone database is one slight wrinkle here.  TZDB isn't really an IETF product, and though ICANN's IANA function is used to perform the updates and the IESG now appoints the relevant experts (see RFC 6557), the database isn't really an IETF work product.  On the other hand, RFC 6557 does say

   The time zone community has requested that the IETF adopt the ongoing
   maintenance of the Time Zone Database.  The time zone community would
   like the IETF to maintain it in a consistent fashion to its
   administration of the Internet protocol parameters and values.

So maybe saying "requested by the IETF" would be ok there anyway.

Also, under its agreements with ICANN the IETF could stop using ICANN as its IANA operator, or could choose another operator for some registries (as it did for ENUM).  If the IETF decided to move all functions, then the removal of "such as" would make the clause false; I'm anxious not to set up a sitation where a fundamental bylaw could be impossible for ICANN to satisfy because of the actions of another party (such as the IETF).  By leaving the "such as" in, there is a set of possible protocol parameter sources, a member of which is the IETF; the actual set could be empty at any one time without a problem.

So those are a couple reasons for the language; but my initial reaction is that it ought to be ok to remove the "such as".  I have not asked anyone on the IAB, so I don't know whether they'd have a different opinion.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com