IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Thu, 06 November 2014 16:10 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 488011A876C for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 08:10:28 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 WWpiCmJ4Fh4E for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 08:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 955251A883E for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 08:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [80.169.25.242] (helo=[192.168.46.56]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jcurran@istaff.org>) id 1XmPdU-000IHJ-VE; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 16:10:13 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Originating-IP: 80.169.25.242
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19VxieWG9yTbt5uqNsFOafI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <D080D78C.136C6E%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 16:10:15 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <D8680FE5-1088-4842-ADB8-EB8E6F6CF681@istaff.org>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEOJCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <54594A50.4090305@meetinghouse.net> <20141105001731.GA30186@mx1.yitter.info> <54597BDB.7040305@meetinghouse.net> <5459BA98.1070006@gmail.com> <545A208A.7040304@meetinghouse.net> <631e3e3d29c843bd9c23151c63612989@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141105154903.GI30379@mx1.yitter.info> <498a39b81b774192bd2d609b3feab35f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141105234444.GM31320@crankycanuck.ca> <545ABCB0.5080206@meetinghouse.net> <8f3dcda6c3db4cd8be1b77444f987d59@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D0805C27.136BE7%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <7F52A930-DD6F-4D0D-8278-A021CF8A466C@istaff.org> <D080D78C.136C6E%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
To: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/9DXSi-vlTaCV5jxUhMz737uMESI
Cc: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
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
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: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 16:10:28 -0000

On Nov 6, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Peterson, Jon <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> wrote:
>> Jon - 
>> 
>>  I have no view on whether the IETF should assert any position with
>>  respect to intended future use of the IANA marks or domain name (and
>>  do understand how asserting a position, absent constructive
>> engagement, 
>>  could be misunderstood by others in the stewardship transition planning
>>  process.)
>> 
>>  However, I cannot tell if you are also against any mention of the
>> IETF's
>>  _present and existing use_ of the IANA marks and domain name in the
>> ICG 
>>  RFP response...  could you opine specifically on this question?
> 
> I'm totally fine with detailing the IETF's present and existing use of the
> IANA - we would be kind of missing the point of the questionnaire if we
> didn't.

Agreed.

> And I think it would be great if that relationship continued along
> past lines.

I think it would be great if cooperation in the use of the domain name 
and marks (to serve multiple communities) was achieved even absent NTIA's 
present IANA stewardship; how do you proposed this should be achieved?

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email