[discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

Sun Mar 23 09:48:49 UTC 2014

On 23 Mar 2014, at 4:40 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Sunday 23 March 2014 12:44 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 2014, at 2:59 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> (standards making for something as socially important today as the Internet, in absence of any further neutral public oversight constitutes a governance function). 
>> 
>> Really?  There are hundreds of IETF protocols (and there can be hundreds of
>> Internet Drafts proposing changes or enhancements coming up for consideration
>> to become an RFC at any given IETF meeting...)
>> 
>> Decisions on all of those documents are "governance functions"?  That is 
>> beyond believability, and hence I ask what criteria or circumstances that
>> you believe would make a decision on a document an act of  "governance"...
> 
> Before I present my case, I would like to know whether you consider ICANN's DNS functions as governance functions or not?

	ICANN has a great many functions related to the DNS. Some of them are governance functions, some are not, some are arguable. You will have to be a lot more precise. 

	And it should be noted that the individual sub-components of ICANN are usually quite specific about their role. Sometimes the same issue can be dealt with as a governance function by some parts of ICANN, as a policy development by other parts, and an implementation by others - all parts being quite specific about their role. 
	Cheers
		David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140323/eb85b414/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140323/eb85b414/signature.asc>