Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,
At 07:10 01-09-2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>The above text was taken verbatim (I think) from the principles that
>were developed in the Spring, even before we knew of the NTIA
>announcement.  I'm not saying one can't disagree or even debate the
>point, but that's where the text came from.

I read the principles from the minutes and did 
not find "technical" in the text that was agreed on.

>Really?  No Dave Conrad?  No John Curran?  No Patrik Fältström?  (just
>to name a few).

There was a message from frobbit.se (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg88990.html 
) and one from shinkuro.com (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg89388.html 
).  There wasn't any message from arin.net or 
icann.org.  David Conrad recently started working for ICANN.

>That is a statement of principle.  How do you believe it to be incorrect?

The IETF process is discussed in RFC 2026.  The 
text would require any changes to be done through that process.

>They've done fine thus far without having done so.

This confuses people from developing countries 
(see http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-January/001012.html ).


Hi Eric,
At 09:31 01-09-2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>There is a particular facet I think we want to make clear: there may
>come a time when we need another distributed registry.  It's not that
>hard to imagine.  If so, we will need to look at existing structures,
>and assign/delegate accordingly.  Names and unicast IP addresses are
>examples of protocol registries that have been assigned to other
>organizations.

Names and unicast IP addresses registries are 
managed by ICANN through the IANA Functions 
contract.  The IETF part has not been 
controversial.  I would suggest solving the IETF part.

>I may have already lost the plot on this one, but as Eric writes, the
>document is sprinkled with references, and there is then a specific
>question about references.  I could aggregate all the references into
>that question, but the reason the references are where they are is so
>that people can spot relevance.

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy