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

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

At 01:24 08/11/2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>The thing is, it is not, in any way, shape, manner, or form, a 
>response to the ICG RFP.

Absolutely correct.
Please tell me where ICG RFP is mentionned in this WG's Charter.
Richard made the point that this WG is to think as if it was ICANN. 
This is what I oppose. This WG is not ICANN (proof: it has no embedded lawyer).
http://iuwg.net/images/draft-iuwg-intlnet-sdo-registry-relations.02.pdf 
is pertinent.

>>IAB/ICANN/NTIA RFC 3172 (BCP 52) 
>>https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3172.txt 
>><https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3172.txt>. In particular Section 5.

This is the response called both by the WG Charter and the ICG:

(1) we have an existing solution and the Charter wants status quo. We 
only have to internally generalize this solution to the multi-SDo 
multi-repository multi-stakeholder context acknowledged by IEEE, IAB, 
IETF, ISOC, W3C, NTIA, ITU (RFC 6852; March 14, 2014 statement; Busan)

(2) since we do not want to change that general solution we can only 
answer "no" to every demand for any specific change.

(3) our charter is therefore to consider the global changes that 
might require a change in the agreed existing general solution: no 
ICG request is formulated appropriately.

(4) possibly, in order to spur the IETF slowliness in internally 
implementing that solution, we might suggest the IESG/IAB to:

      - create a WG/ARPA to publish an RFC 3172bis in order to update 
the BCP 52
      - and organize a NonWG/ARPA mailing list to manage .arpa as per 
this BCP 52.

Best
jfc