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

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Thu, 21 May 2015 15:33 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 DF31A1A8870 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 08:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
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] 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 EN_6uDjs3-7p for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 08:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound3.ore.mailhop.org (erouter8.ore.mailhop.org [54.187.218.212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 68C1A1A8849 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 08:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.132.255.159] (unknown [166.171.56.38]) by outbound3.ore.mailhop.org (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA; Thu, 21 May 2015 15:33:32 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70)
In-Reply-To: <748A065C2DEF6DC717B0E802@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:33:46 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <B8A5D91B-68E7-4EE1-BFA5-40764EF84F86@istaff.org>
References: <5550F809.80200@cisco.com> <55511064.2000300@gmail.com> <CAOW+2dvBb4n4W=q7NoO_V1X+JoqvO1TWYBqPAEseY9T7vybj9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SEkBSfk5H5ZjOqfiyaxPak_62cNcRR-SDFH2JJ2HxQumA@mail.gmail.c> <om@mac.com> <59edd953c1d349cfa377bcd72b514b7f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <C3D17473E06220755959AB78@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <27ed27614a6b47729043610f09ac197f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <88F741BF3D4C2A597622A70C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <44A0F230-A98C-4060-88E2-B20FE1DE1FC5@isoc.org> <14ff00ba1aae45f2a8f4befb896e2a08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D17525F2-190B-4D00-AEBE-5AD96BA79E79@arin.net> <A026656644A030B7130B94B5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <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> <DM2PR0301MB065543B4DCBCB7 51656B563DA8C20@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <a78386a2666240d48be0aba1fb543e75@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <9F5DADEC7B0F069BA5BCB67A@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <90712DBB-A97F-48AA-91D5-E1E18A395B33@istaff.org> <748A065C2DEF6DC717B0E802@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/GpAloi5-UCOo2u_rBmeAJ5i8Icg>
Cc: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>, "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
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: Thu, 21 May 2015 15:33:53 -0000

On May 21, 2015, at 9:47 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> ...
>  Without either of those two kinds of
> information, I do have an opinion about impact and risks to the
> IETF, and have expressed it before, I think in my first note on
> the subject: this is too complex, it introduces new risks of
> non-transparent behavior that may be accountable to small groups
> but is not even as accountable to the broader community as
> ICANN's operation of IANA is today, and therefore should not be
> considered acceptable.  

John -

You do not consider IETF's MOU for IANA services sufficient to 
mitigate the risks associated with the CWG proposal? It would 
be very useful for this community to understand what risks you 
believe are not addressed by the present RFC 2860 MOU...

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer: my views alone