IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Mon, 01 September 2014 07:18 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 C9D101A00F8 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 hgeLcyPHjcmH for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:18cc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1424B1A00F9 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 00:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-38-80-172.adslplus.ch [178.38.80.172]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s817IX99010801; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:18:33 +0200
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:18:25 +0200
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNAEFCCKAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <54037F3C.6020409@gmail.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/H_NpYaivutLvps-6zqFaeT74WNo
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch
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, 01 Sep 2014 07:18:47 -0000

Thank you.  That risk  can be avoided by proposing the new text as a
specific amendment to the existing agreement.  That way there is no
implication that the whole agreement is open for renegotiation.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Brian E
> Carpenter
> Sent: dimanche, 31. aout 2014 22:02
> To: rhill@hill-a.ch
> Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org; Russ Housley; Eliot Lear
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
>
>
> On 31/08/2014 22:07, Richard Hill wrote:
> ...
> >> The existing
> >> text (which was ratified by the ICANN Board in 2000) leaves no
> >> loophole. Personally
> >> I think the risks in changing even one word in the existing MoU
> >> are too great.
> >
> > What risks do you have in mind?
>
> Pressure to change something more fundamental as a result of
> opening the document up at all for this relatively small
> point.
>
>    Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email