Also well said Stephanie. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 3:23 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] High level goal (was Re: For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement) +1. We are never going to resolve the tensions, because the approach to the matter between different groups with different interests is vast. We need to strike a bargain that seems fair enough for the moment. Detente. But I don't recommend introducing that word Stephanie Perrin On 2016-08-18 18:42, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Hi, On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:18:13PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote: the WG will have to try to find solutions to mitigate the tensions among stakeholders with regard to possible RDS requirements and policies. In fact, I believe that this is a key point of the overall problem statement. I don't think we actually disagree about this, but let me try to put a different gloss on that and see whether you think it's right. Our problem is not to resolve the tension among stakeholders or different parties. Our problem is to forge a policy that takes into account those various views, with the understanding that the goal is ultimately to produce a policy that produces the best outcome for the Internet (which means also for the constituent networks and the actual and potential users of them). One consequence of that understanding is that we probably should not produce policies that radically empower one set of views at the overwhelming cost of another, unless the losing view is itself something that does not contribute to good outcomes for the Internet. (So, for instance, it's ok to say that a view which desires to undermine the end to end principle is one we simply will not accommodate: its entire goal is to undermine the basis of internetworking.) ICANN policies are best when they support and promote the interoperation of networks that make up the Internet, where those policies impinge upon the DNS at the levels closest to the root zone. Some of that policy inevitably interacts with national laws, sub-, trans-, and inter-national issues in operation of the constituent networks, and issues that arise at the nexus of protocol operation and use of those protocols (where the "users" in this case are the entire class of anyone who wants to use the Internet at the top-most parts of the DNS). For that reason, ICANN policies need to reflect those conditions, which means taking into account the legal and political realities that affect the Internet wherever it is deployed. At the same time, we need to accept and recognise that some legal and political demands really do represent a threat to the Internet itself, and such demands (regardless of which legal regime backs them) are not something that ICANN policy can legitimately accommodate. Therefore, we set our bar too high if we think we can _resolve_ the tussle[1]. All we can do is work out a _modus vivendi_ in which some new stage in the tussle stabilizes for a period. It seems to me that we are at a stage in Internet development where everyone acknowledges that (1) the existing state of affairs is unsatisfying to just about everyone and (2) the technology has evolved in ways that permit us to look at desires with fresh eyes and attempt to make new, medium-term-stable arrangements. Does that seem close to what you're trying to suggest? Best regards, A [1] http://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf. In my opinion, anyone who hasn't read that paper and who is participating in Internet policy development is doing him or herself a disservice.