Subject: Re: On IETF support (was Re: Important Announcement from the Internet Society and Public Interest Registry)

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:37:30 +0000

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, Leif Johansson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Am I right in thinking income was/is not the only relevant aspect of
> ISOCs ownership of PIR ?

It was not the only relevant aspect, no, though it was an important one.

But I don't think that the governance of this is relevant to the IETF,
and I don't believe the IETF list is an appropriate place to answer
these questions.  I'll answer your questions off-list, but I encourage
people who wish to discuss such issues to do so on one of the ISOC
lists where it is being discussed.

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO, Internet Society
[email-masked]
+1 416 731 1261

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:19:39 +0800

Skickat från min iPhone

> 20 nov. 2019 kl. 19:38 skrev Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>:
> 
> 
> 

As a noob in this particular world I gotta ask: what are those lists?

Cheers Leif

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 05:13:41 +0000

> As a noob in this particular world I gotta ask: what are those lists?

One is https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy.
Probably a better one is the chapter-delegates list, but you'd need to
be part of an Internet Society chapter to see that traffic.

Best regards,

A

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:47:56 -0800

> One is https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy.

I have joined the list and have submitted a request to the ISOC support
team to get access to the archives. But this mailing list and its
archives are available only to Internet Society members and there are
many stakeholders who probably aren't ISOC members. I think it would
serve the wider internet community better to have this discussion happen
in a more public venue.

-Jim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 08:31:27 +1300

> serve the wider internet community better to have this discussion happen

ISOC individual membership is available to anybody. As far as I know, it's still
free of charge. How much more "public" do you want?
https://portal.internetsociety.org/622619/form/join

   Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:40:56 -0500

> https://portal.internetsociety.org/622619/form/join

Should you really have to join ISOC just to discuss a subject of 
significant importance to the Internet community?

For that matter, how does the Internet community benefit by having the 
discussion siloed?

Keith

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Nov 2019 16:43:00 -0500

>significant importance to the Internet community?

If by the Internet community you mean Internet users, about 0.1% of
them are .org registrants and other 99.9% are not.  The arguments on
the internet-policy list have entirely been about the sale's purported
effects on .org registrants.  When Andrew said that the PIR deal will
have no effect on ISOC's support of the IETF, he meant it.  I was
there when we approved the sale, I know the numbers, I know he's
right.  

If any topic of interest to 0.1% of Internet users is fair game here,
we're going to have an awfully chatty list.

R's,
John

PS:

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:23:59 -0500

> there when we approved the sale, I know the numbers, I know he's

It's not just holders of .org domains who are affected.   The existence 
of a not-for-profit registry holding a well known TLD put pressure on 
other TLD registries to limit prices and (to some small degree) moderate 
their predatory behaviors.

I accept that ISOC's support of IETF probably won't change much if at 
all, but it's not as if monetary support of IETF is the only issue we 
need to know and care about.

As in-person participation at IETF meetings is waning for a variety of 
reasons, the extended worldwide IETF community needs a common way to 
discuss matters of broad importance.   Maybe there should be a separate 
list ("ietf-talk"?) for such discussions, but I believe that suppression 
of discussion of Internet-related matters within IETF (which does seem 
to be an increasing trend) ultimately does harm to IETF's relevance.   
And as far as I can tell, IETF is and has been the list on which such 
matters have traditionally been discussed.   The actions of ICANN and 
internet registries do influence technical choices that IETF makes, and 
technical choices that have been made by IETF were made based on 
assumptions of how ICANN and the registries would function.

Keith

p.s. And just for completeness, percentage of usage is almost never a 
valid proxy for importance.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:44:37 -0500

That sure sounds like an ICANN topic, not an IETF topic.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/26/2019 5:23 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> to be an increasing trend) ultimately does harm to IETF's relevance. And 
> as far as I can tell, IETF is and has been the list on which such

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 02:58:58 -0800

> That sure sounds like an ICANN topic, not an IETF topic.

Here's one interesting take:

"The Sketchy, Sketchy Case Of ICANN Execs And Self-Dealing Regarding The
.Org Domain"
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191125/23132643458/sketchy-sketchy-case-icann-execs-self-dealing-regarding-org-domain.shtml

thanks,
Rob