--On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:46 -0400 John Curran <jcurran@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... >> Let's not complicate things further by making the assumption >> that anything that reasonably looks like "technical stuff" >> belongs in the IETF and not in ICANN. It is likely to just >> make having the right conversations even harder. > > I believe that policy issues that are under active discussion > in ICANN can also be discussed in the IETF, but there is > recognition that ICANN is likely the more appropriate place > to lead the process of consensus development and approval. > > I believe that protocol development that is under active > discussion at the IETF can also discussed at ICANN, but there > is recognition that the IETF is likely the appropriate place > to lead the process of consensus development and approval. >... John, While I agree with the above (and am still trying to avoid carrying this conversation very far on the IETF list), I think another part of the puzzle is that there are also situations in which technical considerations imply real constraints on policy alternatives. Some obvious examples include physical constants like the speed of light, others, only slightly less obvious, include things like the design of the DNS as a simply hierarchy that cannot support symmetric aliases (i.e., anything that would support an actual "came from" function or a list of all of the names that point to a given note). The policy folks ignore those constraints, or treat them as subject to policy-making decisions at the risk of being ridiculous and/or causing considerable harm to the Internet. While they are less obvious in this community, I suggest it works the other way too -- there are policy and economic decisions and realities that are as much constraints on the technical solution space as those technical constrains are on the policy ones, with just about the same risks of ridiculousness or damage if they are ignored. That is, again, why it is so unfortunate that the original model of the IAB/PSO as one of ICANN's three "everyone has to work together" pillars was abandoned... and more unfortunate that it was replaced on the ICANN side by approximately nothing other than some committees and other bodies that could easily be ignored and on the IETF side by depending on individuals with feet in both camps to speak up. john