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

[Richard Hill <[e-mail]>]

I'm ok in principle with what Eliot says below and I look forward to seeing the new text. 

Best Richard

On November 6, 2014 6:15:35 PM CET, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Hi Miles,
>
>On 11/6/14, 9:08 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Our charter does not require us to conclude explicit agreements.  It
>requires us to state our requirements, and then let the IAOC do its job
>to meet those requirements.  I think the ICG response needs to indicate
>what requirements need to be met, and perhaps even how they have been
>met, if that happens in time.
>
>In fact you laid out a perfect path that I had borrowed from in one of
>the revisions:
>
>1.  State what is required
>2.  Express as a transition need that the requirement be satisfied.
>
>How detailed we get in requirements is always a good question, but as
>far as the NTIA is concerned, so long as they can see that the
>requirement has indeed been addressed, and they can come back to us to
>ask, then that should suffice.  As Jon Peterson and Cullen Jennings
>have
>pointed out, some wiggle room is helpful, and dare I say productive. 
>But what we must do here is state what we need, and there needs to be
>sufficient clarity so that the IAOC can do its job.  I think that's
>where Alissa's text comes in...
>
>Eliot
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ianaplan mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.