<div dir="ltr"><div>Deasr All,</div><div>Perhaps the issue was much simpler and straigjht forward than wjhat we discussing.</div><div>Wouildn't be more prudent to keep the texct as iot was and when ever ,we refer to coorinationin the text we complemented it b" and support ,where applicable and required"</div><div>The rest unchanged$</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-11-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Seth Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com" target="_blank">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Pasted below is my response to Andrew last week, which clarifies my<br>
own position, including fuller text from my original post that did not<br>
go to the list.<br>
<br>
<br>
Seth<br>
<span><br>
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Figured this will be asked and have to be answered at some point but not<br>
> this early. I think it's just fine to get roles clarified as much as<br>
> possible at this time in the interest of the future.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.afrinic.net/blog/21-the-journey-to-dublin-and-beyond-iana-stewardship-transition-and-icann-accountability" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.afrinic.net/blog/21-the-journey-to-dublin-and-beyond-iana-stewardship-transition-and-icann-accountability</a><br>
><br>
> Cheers!<br>
><br>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
><br>
> On 3 Nov 2015 01:55, "Padmini" <<a href="mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com">pdmnbaruah@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> In light of this thread, does it then make sense to completely separate<br>
>> the three functions post the transition?<br>
<br>
</span><div><div class="h5">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: Seth Johnson <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:31 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on<br>
Mission Statement<br>
To: Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>><br>
Cc: "Burr, Becky" <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>>, Steve Crocker<br>
<<a href="mailto:steve@stevecrocker.com">steve@stevecrocker.com</a>>, Accountability Community<br>
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>, "IAB@Iab.org"<br>
<<a href="mailto:IAB@iab.org">IAB@iab.org</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
I would state that intergovernmental authorities come into play now.<br>
My point isn't that these functions are or should be coordinated by<br>
ICANN, nor that they should not be coordinated by IETF. My point is<br>
that the role of governments is now becoming more determinative<br>
(despite the conduct of the coordination in IETF).<br>
<br>
This edit, removing the (incorrect) use of the term coordination in<br>
relation to ICANN and turning it into support and collaboration serves<br>
to leave the functions in the intergovernmental context. Even if you<br>
continue to conduct the processes in IETF. Not sure even specifying<br>
somewhere (which is probably the case somewhere) changes it.<br>
<br>
Not constructing any type of argument that ICANN had this coordinating<br>
function, unless in the perhaps interesting sense that having the term<br>
there helped make things look like governments didn't possess this<br>
authority. I maintain that we're just clearing the path for them to<br>
finally actually start asserting their intergovernmental authority.<br>
<br>
This seems like just another case of the message not getting through.<br>
If that's the case, I'll revert to saying "Just watch." :-)<br>
<br>
(added my text back in below yours)<br>
<br>
<br>
Seth<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div>On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Andrew Sullivan<br>
<div><div class="h5"><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> I've trimmed some of the cc:s because I'm not really sure why the<br>
> original was copied all over.<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:08:34PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:<br>
>> The real question relates to context in the transition though: where are<br>
>> core registries and protocol parameters coordinated, if that function is<br>
>> removed from ICANN?<br>
><br>
> They are co-ordinated exactly where they have been at least since the<br>
> founding of ICANN: at the IETF. The IETF makes the decisions about<br>
> the protocol parameters registries. ICANN, in its role as IANA,<br>
> records those decisions. The ICANN role in this case is basically<br>
> clerical. The IETF has been perfectly clear about this all the way<br>
> through the entire process. So has ICANN: that's what the MoU between<br>
> ICANN and the IETF (and IAB) says.<br>
><br>
> I suppose it would be possible to construct an argument that ICANN had<br>
> this "co-ordination" function when there was still a Protocol<br>
> Supporting Organization, but since the PSO went away rather a long<br>
> time ago, that argument is no longer available in any case. (I happen<br>
> not to accept that argument anyway, but since it doesn't ramify I<br>
> don't think it's worth exploring in detail.)<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
><br>
> A (speaking for myself)<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Andrew Sullivan<br>
> <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><span>On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Seth Johnson <<a href="mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com">seth.p.johnson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
The real question relates to context in the transition though: where<br>
are core registries and protocol parameters coordinated, if that<br>
</span>function is removed from ICANN? The question may not be so simple as<br>
<div><div class="h5">the tech community might think.<br>
<br>
We are moving from one context to another (a very different<br>
stewardship context), and that changes things thoroughly in this case<br>
(and generally should have been borne in mind in any such process<br>
transition).<br>
<br>
To put this in context further, I essentially brought this question up<br>
at NetMundial:<br>
<br>
Last NetMundial Panel on the IANA Transition:<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=5713" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=5713</a><br>
<br>
My question:<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=10186" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=10186</a><br>
<br>
Heather Dryden of GAC responded, though did not acknowledge that<br>
governmental authority (or intergovernmental, as the resolutions I<br>
referenced are largely ITU) would be already relevant even at that<br>
stage for these supposedly "merely" technical functions, and steered<br>
the question toward the names function instead:<br>
<br>
Heather Dryden's (limited) response to my question:<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=10400" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=10400</a><br>
<br>
I believe the ccTLDs were already in a position to act in those<br>
"merely" technical areas even from that point (from the standpoint of<br>
authority over their own country domains, though not necessarily so<br>
free from the standpoint of what we were supposedly doing with a<br>
multistakeholder/non-intergovernmental process -- plus all that "one<br>
net" talk :-) ) but we were supposedly striving toward a<br>
non-intergovernmental process according to NTIA, and the truth is the<br>
public policy implications of acting even in these areas are not<br>
really so "merely technical."<br>
<br>
I don't believe it would generally be accepted that this version of<br>
oversight would be established by the IANA Transition without engaging<br>
on its ramifications.<br>
<br>
</div></div><snip><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>