Re: [Ianaplan] it's more than that

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Mon, 04 May 2015 09:01 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 7F5C71AC401 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2015 02:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 bqARskV8d1t8 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2015 02:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch (smtp-sh2.infomaniak.ch [128.65.195.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E79F1AC3FD for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2015 02:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.infomaniak.ch (smtp3.infomaniak.ch [84.16.68.91]) by smtp-sh.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4491V3F027224 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 May 2015 11:01:31 +0200
Received: from RHillNew (adsl-178-39-30-235.adslplus.ch [178.39.30.235]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp3.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4491TmT030190; Mon, 4 May 2015 11:01:29 +0200
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: 'John Levine' <johnl@taugh.com>, ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <CAOW+2dvEig9FDqKDtA26bwawbmgF+H+X_DJYbO5OjTy8nrpckw@mail.gmail.com> <20150503214102.33356.qmail@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20150503214102.33356.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 11:01:40 +0200
Message-ID: <00a701d08648$f08e2880$d1aa7980$@ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdCF6fsTK3KPg52rTu66Uju0Icc1mgAXpSdA
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/IJDIr5hKeQLIe6ZT2xlRn3QlhQo>
Cc: bernard.aboba@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] it's more than that
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, 04 May 2015 09:01:37 -0000

Please see embedded comments below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
> Levine
> Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2015 23:41
> To: ianaplan@ietf.org
> Cc: bernard.aboba@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] it's more than that
> 

SNIP

> 
> Personally, I'm more concerned about two things.  One is that the CWG's
> plan boils down to ICANN overseeing itself through a wholly owned
> subsidiary.  I realize there are supposed to be all sorts of conditions
> indented to make this less absurd, but it seems absurd to me.

Indeed. I've made that point in the CWG-Stewardship comments forum, as have
two other people, see:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15
/msg00000.html 

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15
/msg00001.html
 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15
/msg00002.html 

SNIP