IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 03 November 2014 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 ADD901A877E for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:20:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 X71a99cabGLC for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:20:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 133811A8780 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (nat-07-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5F6C8A035 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 22:20:40 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:20:35 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141103222034.GA28757@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <20141103212831.GF28565@mx1.yitter.info> <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMENBCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMENBCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/F9oUejFU1SVr3t0ZNVG6MSYg4HE
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: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 22:20:44 -0000

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:54:05PM +0100, Richard Hill wrote:
> Why?  NTIA asked ICANN to prepare a transtion plan.  In turn, ICANN tasked
> the ICG to prepare that plan.  So the plan that will be transmitted by the
> ICG will be ICANN's plan.

But ICG has to submit something that achieves broad multistakeholder
support.  ICANN is in a position, if we insist on something they don't
like, to bring the whole thing to a halt a the ICG.  If the ICG
overrules and says, "Nope, gonna do it that way," then the NTIA
requirement for Internet community support will be demonstrably
missed.

People who think we get to choose whatever we want, regardless of how
acceptable it is to ICANN, have a different world-view than mine.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email