Re: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions

Jefsey <> Wed, 29 April 2015 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D46D1A1BF5 for <>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.134
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id djoQBQSInVvC for <>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:41:14 -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 233B31A1BA4 for <>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:12463 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <>) id 1YnU6X-0003xo-7V; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:40:53 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:40:25 +0200
To: Alissa Cooper <>, "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>
From: Jefsey <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Message-Id: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:41:15 -0000

At 15:25 29/04/2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>* PTI ownership. If the PTI is formed as an affiliate of ICANN as 
>the CWG proposes, as a legal entity it would be wholly owned by 
>ICANN. Your community may want to consider its view of this whole 
>ownership versus joint ownership involving all or multiple communities.

All what ICANN may propose/investigate is irrelevant to 
internet/catenet users on a worldwide basis and, as for the IETF 
global community of NTIA followers,  execept (after the probable 
various transitions to ITU and Libre) for the US citizens. However, 
for the sake of good mutual inter global community relations and due 
to the traditional trust the world has invested in them for 30 years, 
it might be of interest that the IAB is granted a veto power at PTI - 
without a need for investing money there, since in the considered 
system money is still the metric of power. This would restore some of 
the initial ICANN accountability framework devised by the NTIA and 
accepted by the GAC. It might help some States to better swallow the 
ICANN hi-jack on the IANA.