[discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

[parminder]

On Sunday 23 March 2014 03:18 PM, David Cake wrote:
>
> On 23 Mar 2014, at 4:40 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto: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 
>>> <mailto: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?

I meant the function the world knows ICANN for - allocation of TLD 
names... parminder

>
> 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/20140323/04e8c585/attachment.html>