IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Tue, 04 November 2014 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
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 71D041A0A6B for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 01:27:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 MuLXa7r4Ko6a for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 01:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.infomaniak.ch (smtp3.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E2C01A03E3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 01:27:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-39-117-99.adslplus.ch [178.39.117.99]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp3.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA49Qujm030561; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:26:56 +0100
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, ianaplan@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:26:47 +0100
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNEENFCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <54580575.3020804@cisco.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/2tFpEp2S7zWsWYEkwXmDgMa52l0
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch
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: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 09:27:03 -0000

I fully agree with what Eliot says below.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
> Sent: lundi, 3. novembre 2014 23:45
> To: Andrew Sullivan; ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re:
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/3/14, 2:26 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 02:03:19PM -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
> >> How does that sound to you in principle?
> > My objection to moving the relevant bits to the IETF Trust has never
> > been one of principle.  It's been one of practicality: I don't see any
> > incentive whatsoever for ICANN to give up that property without
> > getting something in return, and I can't think of anything I want to
> > give up more than iana.org in case there's more than one operator. 
> 
> There are two arguments to be made.  First, and perhaps most
> importantly, it's not theirs..  It's the community's, and this is true
> on its face.  How can it be said that IANA.ORG is not part and parcel of
> the IANA functions? Second we have stated a legitimate requirement for
> continuity of service that the NTIA is in a position to make clear is a
> requirement; that is part of security and stability of the IANA
> functions service.  For ICANN to say "no" would discredit them, given
> the first argument.  Nor should they say "no".  It would be bad for
> everyone.
> 
> As I wrote, I am not wedded, nor was I ever wedded, to the IETF Trust
> having to have a role here.  I was satisfied with any successor taking
> the name, as you and Milton agreed.  My sole issue is continuity of
> service in the face of transition, including backward compatibility.
> 
> Finally, I expect that when we publish this document, we are not done. 
> Rather there will be discussions about how to meet the legitimate
> requirements we have laid out, such that the other parties are
> satisfied.  That may require changes to the resulting response.  That is
> already built into the ICG's timeline.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email