Re: [Ianaplan] Review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

At 00:47 28/10/2014, John Curran wrote:
>On Oct 27, 2014, at 4:02 PM, JFC Morfin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > ...
> > Should all this not be discussed at the PSO as per RFC 2691, the 
> IETF has established to that end (ICANN/IETF protocol parameters issues)?
>
><http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/docs2003/icann-pso-notice/>

John,
Thank you to help me making the point: I did not find back this notice.

1) as it was explained to Richad Hill recently, the IETF has its own 
ways. An RFC is to be obsoleted by an RFC. The notice is only signed 
by the IETF Chair, as is RFC 6852, which is also signed by the IAB, 
the ISOC, the W3C and the IEEE Chairs and is IAB Stream. Either RFC 
6852 is to be considered, or it is not, nor the resignation you 
quote, and the PSO is the proper place. My point is certainly that 
the uncompleted (lack of accountability) RFC 6852 framework applies.

2) This RFC involves the ITU, the W3C and any SDO who could wish to 
adhere, meet the criteria, and be accepted. This examplifies the 
ICANN attitude with peers.

3) More importantly, I suggest everyone to carefully note that if the 
IETF has removed itself from the PSO it is NOT by its own decision, 
but due to the UNILATERAL decision of ICANN to remove the PSO from 
its own organization. From this experience why would IETF trust any 
agreement with ICANN, even agreed and signed with/by other major SDOs 
(such ITU and W3C)?

In French we say "chat échaudé craint l'eau froide" and in latin 
"errare humanum est, diabolicum perseverare".

jfc