Re: [Ianaplan] it's more than that

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Mon, 04 May 2015 10:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ocl@gih.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2537E1ACD10 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2015 03:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v0sMd-Cv2ZZ8 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2015 03:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (salsa.gih.co.uk [IPv6:2a00:19e8:10:5::b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D41C1ACD0B for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2015 03:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1]) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A72D18F3B5; Mon, 4 May 2015 11:00:12 +0100 (BST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mahalo1; bh=sZ9vZXJCe JMBbt83LeOv0xBVwrQ=; b=NV1Df080VOn7rfF/O2bcN/YW+1Zu+I6PfjhbBcaEC 3XbsAHZbkEgsH+BzrRyBKEKjExLmcXlp+pyO0gDObX+HfJUqvjmQlUN4QKFvIz2S J1CpWovJYgSBui0WJzKaoH+S90B920pUwsrGx4JqDDXe+zOXrDfe6zSmuH7OheBG SU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mahalo1; b=ZKz rxHTUAPMUtUzXtKE4Rww37ZBAfQ98PeCAVzHh9C8/zbjah/cud0D6CaiAEvnxxv8 mZw11hr+nfHhxDEMCkwdcMCPxK9oY7OHYqX26OkjI5VMCNgwxQuOswJQPsRRuVMJ CRGHValjifubhwCHsNnji5mUt5YF5udqZq/SExuc=
Received: from [192.168.1.18] (ANice-651-1-186-69.w83-197.abo.wanadoo.fr [83.197.122.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B36F618F3AF; Mon, 4 May 2015 11:00:11 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <55474334.50208@gih.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 12:00:20 +0200
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <20150503214102.33356.qmail@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20150503214102.33356.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/1bjjAXYbAVGCwfOytYPo3Q-QiZA>
Cc: bernard.aboba@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] it's more than that
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 10:00:27 -0000

Dear John,

On 03/05/2015 23:41, John Levine wrote:
> Personally, I'm more concerned about two things.  One is that the
> CWG's plan boils down to ICANN overseeing itself through a wholly
> owned subsidiary.  I realize there are supposed to be all sorts of
> conditions indented to make this less absurd, but it seems absurd to
> me.

See Patrik's note about. A common misconception is that ICANN will
oversee itself. Oversight of ICANN is discussed in its Accountability
threads, some of which will continue way past the IANA Stewardship
Transition deadline.

>
> More of an issue is the situation described in this article by the
> generally perceptive Kieren McCarthy two days ago.  It reports that
> ICANN has told the RIRs that ICANN won't even discuss any plan unless
> it says that ICANN runs IANA forever:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/01/icann_iana_latest/

Is any of this substantiated? I'd like to see the original ICANN note
and who has sent it. Who has made this decision? The ICANN Board? By
ICANN, is this ICANN the organisation? ICANN the community? Let's not
forget it's the ICANN Community that is firmly in charge of the NTIA
Stewardship Transition process and as a member of the Cross Community
Working Group, I have seen no discussion leading to this allegation.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html