Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Fri, 20 February 2015 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@istaff.org>
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 CC8E11A802E for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 06:18:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 D426pqpuqIEq for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 06:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pmta1.delivery2.ore.mailhop.org (pmta1.delivery2.ore.mailhop.org [54.149.210.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2CF1A6F3A for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 06:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.ore.mailhop.org (172.31.36.112) by pmta1.delivery1.ore.mailhop.org id hst11u20r84r for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:18:05 +0000 (envelope-from <jcurran@istaff.org>)
Received: from pool-74-96-106-79.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([74.96.106.79] helo=[192.168.1.14]) by smtp3.ore.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <jcurran@istaff.org>) id 1YOoPS-00085j-Li; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:18:26 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP
X-Originating-IP: 74.96.106.79
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@duocircle.com (see https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/FzKY/1Dwe5zsDd27GijPR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <54E61E27.3060504@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:18:24 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <142B0E93-C502-42CE-A5EB-C27D0DEAC108@istaff.org>
References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com> <54E61E27.3060504@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/5WgILKBGky3f6p-BMv2jwA5XsEc>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, "Leslie Daigle \(TCE\)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG
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: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:18:30 -0000

On Feb 19, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>; wrote:
> The question of scope for the representation being provided is fair and
> important.  From the context of the ICG consideration -- as opposed to
> the context of our IETF discussion here -- it seems clear that this
> topic really does concern the "Internet" community and not just the
> "IETF" community.
> 
> So, indeed, any role of the IETF Trust with these names is on behalf of
> the (general) Internet community.

That is one possible formulation; another would be on behalf of the 
"affected community", i.e. the parties that might be exposed to these
names and expect successful dereferencing in the future.  While 'IETF
community' might imply such, affected community certainly covers it, 
and avoids a wider scope which includes parties that might never be 
aware of these terms or their usage.  I have no preference in this 
regard, but note that the typical use of "Internet community" might 
be overly broad in this context.

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.