John, the remark was to temper what might become unrealistic expectations on the reach of the IAB/IETF into -ANY- organizational operational practice. That said, I do not wish to derail this document, just ensure that the caveat is in place before it is enshrined as holy writ. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 5March2015Thursday, at 9:39, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --On Thursday, March 05, 2015 09:00 -0800 manning bill > <bmanning@xxxxxxx> 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 > > > >