IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Sat, 16 May 2015 09:28 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 2F2931B2AFF for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2015 02:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
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 TOi2gAC7mTV0 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 May 2015 02:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch [128.65.195.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83DA31B2AEE for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 May 2015 02:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [84.16.68.92]) by smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4G9SDR9022115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 16 May 2015 11:28:13 +0200
Received: from RHillNew (adsl-178-38-154-96.adslplus.ch [178.38.154.96]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4G9S9Br026938; Sat, 16 May 2015 11:28:13 +0200
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <f6on1gl8whdgno40muda24uo.1431511782189@email.android.com> <5556669C.1070200@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <5556669C.1070200@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 11:28:14 +0200
Message-ID: <002a01d08fba$a50f0b60$ef2d2220$@ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdCPVxO/FnUFlLpUSW6izorlwnFBzgAYxzbg
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Ak0QkDIcCsrGZFudoPEeM0ogRI0>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
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: Sat, 16 May 2015 09:28:29 -0000

For the record, the message below gives the impression that I wrote the
quoted bit.  That's not correct, the quoted bit was written by John Klensin
responding to a message from Milton Mueller.  My contribution to that string
was "I find that John makes some good points below and I look forward to
reading a reply". See:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01758.html 

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Crocker
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 23:35
> To: ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
> 
> On 5/13/2015 3:09 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
> > it could not be spun off
> > without permission from the ICANN Board and,
> ...
> > the PTI arrangement is increased organizational complexity (which
> > almost always increases total costs) and the potential for reduced
> > practical accountability
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email