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

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Thu, 06 November 2014 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.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 667321A6F8B for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:09:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 143aeRJKNkVA for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:09:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD3C1A88B9 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:08:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2014BCC0B6 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:08:52 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lar9VBSv88HV for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:08:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from new-host-3.home (pool-96-237-159-213.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [96.237.159.213]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0026CC097 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:08:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <545BAB1A.1020001@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:08:42 -0500
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0 SeaMonkey/2.30
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEOJCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <54594A50.4090305@meetinghouse.net> <20141105001731.GA30186@mx1.yitter.info> <54597BDB.7040305@meetinghouse.net> <5459BA98.1070006@gmail.com> <545A208A.7040304@meetinghouse.net> <631e3e3d29c843bd9c23151c63612989@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141105154903.GI30379@mx1.yitter.info> <498a39b81b774192bd2d609b3feab35f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20141105234444.GM31320@crankycanuck.ca> <545ABCB0.5080206@meetinghouse.net> <8f3dcda6c3db4cd8be1b77444f987d59@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D0805C27.136BE7%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <7F52A930-DD6F-4D0D-8278-A021CF8A466C@istaff.org> <D080D78C.136C6E%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <D8680FE5-1088-4842-ADB8-EB8E6F6CF681@istaff.org> <545BA463.3090106@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <545BA463.3090106@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Hj7iSq9-HAvO5z2e1gCeENP06pU
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: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 17:09:02 -0000

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On 11/6/14, 8:10 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> I think it would be great if cooperation in the use of the domain name
>> and marks (to serve multiple communities) was achieved even absent
>> NTIA's present IANA stewardship; how do you proposed this should be
>> achieved?
> On the whole through shared goals and values which have served us so
> well in the past.  However, we need to leave open the possibility that
> something will go wrong for reasons that today we cannot fathom.  One
> form of sharing is what we have today.  Are there other forms of
> sharing?  Here I largely agree with Alissa: that is more a matter for
> the IAOC to explore.  Our requirement is seeing that people get properly
> directed to the registries that the IETF has told them to go to through
> our documentation.  Off the top of my head I can think of several
> structural arrangements to satisfy that requirement.  But I am quite
> happy IAOC to "take it from here".

And that brings us back to the procedural question that remains unanswered:

- Is the final IETF proposal, to the ICG, going to be the document 
generated by this WG, or,
- Is the WG draft going to be massaged by others (including the IAOC) 
before delivery to the ICG?

I may have missed it, in which case I apologize to all, but I still 
can't recall seeing a clear, definitive, statement of how we get from a 
WG final document to an "official" response delivered to the ICG.

Either way, it's not an open process for the IAOC to "take it from there."

Personally, I'd be a lot more comfortable to have the IAOC input 
reflected in this WG, either through direct discussion, or through 
review and comment on the various drafts.

>
> I will have a proposal for Monday on how to resolve this issue.  It is
> very much along the lines that Alissa proposed and I agreed to.  I hope
> it meets with this group's acceptance.
>

Looking forward to it!

Miles Fidelman


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra