Re: [Ianaplan] feedback regarding the combined proposal

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Mon, 03 August 2015 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.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 162021B3141 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 K53TXYZGtPGp for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95C71B3126 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so151499519wib.1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=A8lqGSm2u8wlFHMZZFqzHnpTHcjQ9neNE1xy512YED8=; b=a6xGPozLCgehpfugaRrZz2yF11WTgH/05xI+aeyyq1F2D+Riq86d1yFhsjYeTbUjW5 0HmVZlSJTo9FIJKskFLEMVGT1MBgI4+x0lmckEc6OQyToVKrf1sJcUa4Ou8fLcrhDJpL ZJts4khcZ6F2dfpk/oHNlECT6Ng8QN0LV/Y7ciq9+FNxuEJNpj/dsNsuSC6DlPtpJHkE YN7uVI4EcATQgp/oSPONuykRlU6ApShj4CAdOSQhORSi0aK5Sj7dPC0f1hrHusbmi1QX 2aaJMgV2gYuvph2tadBF03vTSs/lkJmJfNWvSi1Gf1sD0NB4OAVxq6+xthCtGNR0od4w x+Rg==
X-Received: by 10.194.235.169 with SMTP id un9mr77996wjc.136.1438635603431; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 14:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.106.104 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7DAC25D2-2321-4918-806C-A598C97F562C@piuha.net>
References: <7DAC25D2-2321-4918-806C-A598C97F562C@piuha.net>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 21:59:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6j1fxtzKyUsPVrdOEDrB3fwdaCWManbrokt6oaEbEiXaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d15701a9944051c6e745e
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/FH0MGW0fW1mmN3_ZjA91ob4DOgU>
Cc: "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] feedback regarding the combined proposal
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: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 21:00:07 -0000

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

>  As a result, current thinking within the IANA program is to say that we
> support the IANA transition proposal put forth by the ICG insofar as it
> relates to the IETF. If people think we should not say that or should say
> something different, that would be good to know.
>

If the statement above means IETF does not observe any inconsistency with
the other operational communities proposal then i think the response can be
as simple as that. Otherwise..........


>
> Also, separately, are there additional questions around the interaction
> points between our proposal and the rest that would be worthwhile to raise
> at this point?
>

....it may be good to indicate if there are aspects of the proposal that
the IETF feels needs to be clarified. For instance the expected
relationship between IETF and the proposed Post transition IANA (PTI) may
need to be formerly documented. One that comes to mind is whether IETF
intends to maintain her intent of signing with ICANN and not with PTI.
Other aspect that the IETF may want to consider clarifying may include but
not limited to the following:
- Its role as it concerns IANA trademarks and domain i.e the implication(if
any) of transferring to its trust and reiterating its willingness to accept
such responsibility.
- Whether there is need to define the expected scope of the PTI board as it
concerns deciding on IETF related issues
- Whether the IETF would want to utilise the IFRT as a form of escalation
or not
- Whether there any possible effect of ICANN community accountability
mechanism that the IETF thinks could affect its relationship between the
MoU signatories

Overall i think the main question would be to determine if there is any
incompatibility foreseen, the answer to that IMO would determine the
directions of the comment.

Regards

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !