Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <> Tue, 29 September 2015 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 228EC1AC449 for <>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6qbEMmldlu3r for <>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:19e8:10:5::b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C7781AC43C for <>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9B618F3CC for <>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:23:57 +0100 (BST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=subject:to :references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mahalo1; bh=1e47UXT58 SLRht/3A7qLPLAL1nc=; b=V/93FWeodHr118Vrqb4Y556+WYvcbuRrNnYRJgwIc aF+l5CvJITBsj+PteN7DUOyDFVII32quHbteSoEEQSTkoSDqf1CHdo45wog4fVDr KAphlotwmoRRIfo2pAOwL2z3CpaKemVSejSKh5DHTSRpa2UUgevDlGzA9b1rUvEd DQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=subject:to :references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mahalo1; b=l7C +BRaGu6YF3/iPG1FuJXzPLoFoUEaDS2kCRFTDyM79RVmHFTNjyOWL8d9+OWCPV+I 1A4MxBUu+aqmSAW0x6nkfEsPthZBgoyVO34XFaoW7DPS5igo2It5MGGfUt23kP/z XxUBUs9qUblBBGVQ39xYyV53cceITu3oLN2dACOM=
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34A4318F3C1 for <>; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:23:57 +0100 (BST)
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:23:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Question from the ICG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:24:17 -0000

On 29/09/2015 16:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I am therefore not convinced even a little bit that additional formal
> commitments, rules, processes, or anything of that sort, are
> advisable.  The goal is to make the Internet better, not to achieve a
> nicely designed process.  As the WG (and, in other contexts, the IAB)
> said, the appoach we're using today (which is mostly informal) is
> working well.  There is no reason to invent new ways of ensuring that
> communication when the communication now flows without such
> inventions.

I understand the reticence in "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". The
recommendation was made by several entities, including the ALAC. We were
concerned that whilst today there appears to be several informal
channels, the future might not keep it this way. So we felt that it
would be a good idea to keep at least a formal channel open so that we
don't end up with one operational community deciding to split without
finding a way to keep the three functions operated by the same IANA
functions operator.
I'd see it as an opportunity to enhance collaboration between
operational communities. As individuals we are not immortal. I have no
idea what the next generations will be like and whether this collegial
collaboration will continue.
Kindest regards,


Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD