Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 29 September 2015 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 DC9011ACE42 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 34PwrCSBrMyM for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 227651ACE41 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3238; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1443549174; x=1444758774; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=mNYFC/PtAIrMxdF47aTdQfQBWoPEn4o5tUw1c0SdojA=; b=DwyvuzccAqvDUb+EIiJ06Yr0Abe1fdLHVPO1egyuCONOymy+s+8dSiKd avC+Uqsq/g+NpC0SGA/ka4RrgR5/SCmhILtX256TOSmjY7rim4C+z6ivy JtPiMMgFTtybyux3RXH/0DfS8C3tc29xEqZyP2HMN75Seft+m6Y2P5u5E 4=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BzAgCezgpW/xbLJq1ewkoOh3QCggoUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCUBAQQjTgcRCxgJFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwIAQEQiBq3LZRYAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBAQEBG4pqgQaFFIJpgUMBBJV0gkuBYYhniQWSPx8BQ4QDPIlRAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,609,1437436800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="630037609"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Sep 2015 17:52:50 +0000
Received: from [10.61.108.78] (dhcp-10-61-108-78.cisco.com [10.61.108.78]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8THqovt009087; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:52:50 GMT
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <56A1B728-98DF-409A-B2B6-2624F53FE175@cooperw.in> <3A58359B-420B-4FEC-B812-4659D980C5D3@vigilsec.com> <CAD_dc6gSKTURuXkFuay8dUKm6i+c9amEgmRQ_-Y37C_hv5i45Q@mail.gmail.com> <20150929151542.GB86614@mx2.yitter.info> <560AC921.4090700@gih.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <560ACFF0.7060504@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:52:48 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <560AC921.4090700@gih.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0JGcC34TWT7TOqD8ukor3983Wd7UbK94u"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/6QOZSXlOvF411eh06kPnio7OCME>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] 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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 29 Sep 2015 17:52:56 -0000

Greetings Olivier,

On 9/29/15 7:23 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> I understand the reticence in "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". The
> recommendation was made by several entities, including the ALAC. We were
> concerned that whilst today there appears to be several informal
> channels, the future might not keep it this way. So we felt that it
> would be a good idea to keep at least a formal channel open so that we
> don't end up with one operational community deciding to split without
> finding a way to keep the three functions operated by the same IANA
> functions operator.
> I'd see it as an opportunity to enhance collaboration between
> operational communities. As individuals we are not immortal. I have no
> idea what the next generations will be like and whether this collegial
> collaboration will continue.

It is certainly the case that we can all do better, but I think we do
reasonably well.

We should keep in mind that some formal mechanisms do exist, even if
they are somewhat loose.  For instance, there is the istar CEO group. 
That group is not always sufficient to the task.  And so there is the
internet collaboration activity.  Both of these have been driven by
ISOC, and it's all institutional.  Personally I expect all of that to
evolve over time, but how I can't say.  And in my experience, when there
is a need the IAB does liaise.  ICANN currently has quite a number of
IETF representatives appointed into various positions, including the
TLG, the board (liaison), RSAC (liason), and I'm sure one or two more. 
Again, I expect all of that to evolve over time, and again I can't say how.

Beyond that, with the RIRs, it is a bit more informal.  But that doesn't
mean communications are bad.  We all see John Curran here, and a few of
us participate in some of their activities, from time to time.   Alvaro
teed up a great outreach partnership with the good folks at LACNIC with
the help of Christian at ISOC.  It'd be good if we could replicate that
elsewhere.  These are real communications whether they are formal or
not.  Many of the formal liaisons twiddle their fingers (having been a
finger twiddler myself) with nothing much to say.  I expect all of that
to evolve over time, but how I cannot say.

Eliot