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

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 22 May 2015 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 CD56F1A87E9 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2015 13:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 5DZKctu4yTdm for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2015 13:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19D021A87E2 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2015 13:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6982CC5F; Fri, 22 May 2015 23:36:09 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M8JgFzr48933; Fri, 22 May 2015 23:36:09 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA562CC5A; Fri, 22 May 2015 23:36:09 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C8D97055-F57F-4F80-AA0E-65CCE97DB2A8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <555DE0FE.606@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 23:36:09 +0300
Message-Id: <ED51CB2F-37AA-4512-8E35-C1F6170ACDAB@piuha.net>
References: <ad1d0707ff1b44eb9e48fef18d8e1268@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <687222FF507C0D3EDBD9CAAA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <000001d091f7$266de3f0$7349abd0$@ch> <51ce19bc2a93443586adcdd2fac3888a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <555BD28F.10402@gmail.com> <97E5874491A30994EC386C37@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <555CEDFF.5010601@gmail.com> <51E8C05D9CFB07754ECD13F5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <DM2PR0301MB065543B4DCBCB751656B563DA8C20@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <a78386a2666240d48be0aba1fb543e75@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20150521001835.GA18401@mx2.yitter.info> <555DE0FE.606@acm.org>
To: avri@acm.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Cc0QI5gq_MVS22iuCvXmVEu1Rts>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
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: Fri, 22 May 2015 20:36:13 -0000

Avri,

First, thank you *very much* for your e-mail. Please continue the
dialogue and do not feel that you should be quiet because you’ve
been involved in the CWG work. Your input here is very much
appreciated.

>> and, "Should we move
>> in that direction?"
> 
> No need for you to do so.
> 
> IETF has a contract with ICANN, they treat you well enough, and you seem
> happy for the most part.  Given all of that, why bother moving in this
> direction.  Stick with your contract.  In designing the solution we made
> sure that for Numbers and Protocols everything could remain in the
> status quo.

This is a key statement. Thank you.

> Certainly some of us hoped you might consider it because we thought it
> might be better for the Internet if you did join us in the PTI and thus
> joined us in direct oversight of the IANA functions operator.  It seemed
> to some of us that an organization like the PTI  anchored in the three
> organizations would be less susceptible to ICANN capriciousness
> (something we experience much more than you do).  With 3 organizations
> overseeing the PTI, we figured it would be certain that there would be
> no policy shenanigans and it would be guaranteed 3 times over that IANA
> stuck to its knitting. 

My personal opinion is that I think that as long as the details of how you
control PTI are done right, you should have sufficient power. That is,
if the names community has the power you should be all right.

However, I do not think that the IETF having its agreement with
ICANN and the names community working with the PTI necessarily
means that our powers could not be united when needed. Just
like today, the communities are in contact. Just like today, if
a change had to be made, we would all discuss that and try
to do it together in a coordinated fashion.

Jari