IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Fri, 28 November 2014 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mueller@syr.edu>
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 7AF591A0169 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:24:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 d645IRLZSr91 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:24:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.syr.edu (smtp1.syr.edu [128.230.18.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15DFD1A0149 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:24:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EX13-MBX-14.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-14.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.145]) by smtp1.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sASGO4pj021094 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:24:04 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-14.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:23:57 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:23:39 -0500
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>, "rhill@hill-a.ch" <rhill@hill-a.ch>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step
Thread-Index: AQHQCadO1go3tQw6R0+Rc26a6EP6NZx0gMsAgAD2YgCAAMMiEA==
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:23:38 +0000
Message-ID: <19275855b65d4b0d8efdeabc34b8c1c2@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEMOCOAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <4A087055-EF5B-4BC7-BA25-3CBA7256BDC4@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A087055-EF5B-4BC7-BA25-3CBA7256BDC4@istaff.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [71.115.134.175]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-11-28_07:2014-11-28,2014-11-28,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1411280166
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/L7_LMH-gBV17i_zMiQ-ZCHJHT6U
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step
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: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:24:17 -0000

> -----Original Message-----

> The draft does
> doesn't preclude stronger legal/contractual measures, but it also does not
> note such as a specific requirement for future IANA arrangements.

This is my understanding, too. The fact that the draft doesn't preclude these measures and has been modified to indicate that changes do need to be made post-NTIA is what ultimately makes the draft (roughly) acceptable to me.

> Adding stronger legal/contractual arrangements as a requirement was
> discussed at length, and it was apparent that accommodating that change in
> the document would actually reduce the level of consensus 

Without commenting on the validity or lack thereof of the arguments against more specific legal/contractual requirements, I think this also accurately reflects the situation.

Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email