Re: [arch-d] FYI: "ISOC" "New IP" "discussion" "paper"

Ian Peter <> Tue, 28 April 2020 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2AF3A09E1 for <>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LHvxSDwmx-Zx for <>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 026B53A09DC for <>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: 8xbl3cp958|x-authuser|
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7321A360D44; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:59:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (100-96-14-17.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local []) (Authenticated sender: 8xbl3cp958) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 59EAB360CC7; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:59:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: 8xbl3cp958|x-authuser|
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by (trex/5.18.6); Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:59:25 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: 8xbl3cp958|x-authuser|
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: 8xbl3cp958
X-Cooperative-Imminent: 3b4b3b7a793436a0_1588111165631_4104074455
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1588111165631:3134761726
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1588111165631
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: Mime-Version:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Date:Cc:Subject:To: From:Sender:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=1zOZiCFhxIj27yqKwSlxyZwccqe5ikMG/mvNksa6510=; b=lnj/KWHUMoObC+mkM3T1rJcMnv RrpUer4SU0rEynN131uDcnAgyIqjOIQVD/OooH6GhuHUmAJbHnskv6HXiNzrCuUg4hHMg8XQGma0P MnxZ9NKXo0I3YShbMQCsZjIE6bxHXsVoRUHMBs8xAKq2Ay+OBTK2E4nYrOPbmMSDpmUs=;
Received: from [] (port=64773 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <>) id 1jTYG8-006B2e-VQ; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:59:21 +0200
From: Ian Peter <>
To: Toerless Eckert <>, Brian E Carpenter <>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:58:57 +0000
Message-Id: <emde06c4fa-b2c1-418c-9f5d-50e5a28bbe6c@desktop-rub0n2r>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Reply-To: Ian Peter <>
User-Agent: eM_Client/7.2.36908.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] FYI: "ISOC" "New IP" "discussion" "paper"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:59:38 -0000


The internetpolicy list in question was dormant for decades, but came to 
life again a few months ago with a substantial discussion on the issues 
surrounding ISOC's proposed sale of Public Internet Registry (PIR) . 
It's fair to say a lot of this discussion was very critical of ISOC's 
position, sometimes quite undiplomatically so. Perhaps some restrictions 
were placed on new memberships in these circumstances? I do not know...

The "new IP" proposal was posted there a couple of days ago. To date it 
has not provoked much discussion, just a couple of comments equating 
this with the OSI battles 30 years ago. Perhaps more substantial comment 
will come in the near future.

Ian Peter

------ Original Message ------
From: "Toerless Eckert" <>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <>
Sent: 29/04/2020 7:17:37 AM
Subject: Re: [arch-d] FYI: "ISOC" "New IP" "discussion" "paper"

>Thanks, Brian, inline
>On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:34:53AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>  Hi Toerless,
>>  On one point only:
>>  > does not allow Global ISOC members to
>>  >   join by themselves, nor do i know if it would welcome discussion.
>>  >   In fact it is not even listed on the set of pubic ISOC mailing lists.
>>  >   So the nature of this mailing list seems to be secret to me.
>>  You can join but not in the normal way... you have to go through a
>>  strange procedure in the Member's Portal or some such place, where I
>>  believe it's called a "Community" or some such. Can't remember, but it
>>  was very baroque.
>Yes, i tried to exhaust my options in there, but got nowhere,
>this includes going to
>and attempting to join via that unpublished link.
>I don't mind baroque as long as its published, but published information
>is wrong, and the fact that the list is not included in the published
>list of ISOC lists makes me wonder if the list lists that are only
>accessible to ISOC members is even published anywhere...
>I did send emails to support.
>>  I believe Andrew said that there is work underway to change this.
>I did have a bit of discussion about the possibility of
>a list like ", but was told in PM
>that getting new mailing lists on is a
>process competing with continental drift in speed.
>Something like such a list would be a great option IMHO for
>the ISOC society to participate on not only in discussions about
>internet history but also its future.
>>  However, I don't see any relevant discussion in the (members only)
>>  archive. Typical subjects recently:
>>  on people not heard (was Re: Language reversion, and an idea)
>>  OneWeb bankruptcy
>>  Interview with Parminder on community ownership of data
>>  Official de-chartering of the Internet Society Ireland Chapter
>>  North-South issues in the Ditigal Economy
>>  European Commission solicits feedback on GDPR's efficiency
>>  Official de-chartering of the Internet Society Ireland Chapter
>Given how seemingly non-published internetpolicy mailing list is,
>i wonder who is even subscribed to it. Not sure if it is possible
>to figure that out.  I very much liked Jay Daleys reconfirmation
>that IETF mailing list membership is of public nature. Not sure
>what ISOC's policy is.
>     Toerless
>>  Regards
>>     Brian
>Architecture-discuss mailing list