IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Sat, 01 November 2014 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 EABEC1A1AAB for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 snZkDlaTmyIk for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 860D21A1AA8 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A27FD8A035 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 21:40:58 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 17:40:57 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141101214056.GC25666@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <54047E4A.30503@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140901094544.0b305698@resistor.net> <54059587.8070608@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20141024004255.0b5ef5d8@resistor.net> <4C1255B9-68C3-45D5-A618-2C7553386DF4@gmail.com> <54522E43.5020709@acm.org> <545428AC.3090802@gmail.com> <7471A339-3938-4D65-81ED-9E27A80EC32B@virtualized.org> <20141101165234.GA25533@mx1.yitter.info> <660C2734-F8AF-44FB-95B4-D04AF1DF1361@virtualized.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <660C2734-F8AF-44FB-95B4-D04AF1DF1361@virtualized.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/KWA5z3JCbIDmxQrmtlK82KieTqQ
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
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: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 21:41:02 -0000

On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 10:53:51AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> 
> Given the IETF has delegated administration via RFC 2860, I would have thought it useful to formally include the delegatee in discussions related to the resource (either domain names or IP addresses) being discussed, not just have the decision be solely dependent on the IESG's opinion. 
> 

But surely, the answer to that is participation or at least some
attention paid by the relevant organizations to relevant developments
in the IETF?  It seems to me that ICANN and all the RIRs have
professional paid staff; couldn't some of those pay attention to
proposals that might have some consequences for the organization in
question, given that that's the structure of the MoU?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email