Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi SM,

On 9/1/14, 7:00 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Eliot,
> At 07:10 01-09-2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> The above text was taken verbatim (I think) from the principles that
>> were developed in the Spring, even before we knew of the NTIA
>> announcement.  I'm not saying one can't disagree or even debate the
>> point, but that's where the text came from.
>
> I read the principles from the minutes and did not find "technical" in
> the text that was agreed on.

Ok.  I'm opening an issue on the text to track this.  Incidentally, I'm
right now using GITHUB for issue tracking (see
https://github.com/elear/IANA-Transition/issues/).  If ianaplan gets
chartered the chairs may use those issues or not, depending (among other
things) whether the WG uses the draft ;-)  I will also accept pull
requests so long as it's clear that this group finds the text
acceptable, or it's editorial in nature.
>
>> Really?  No Dave Conrad?  No John Curran?  No Patrik Fältström?  (just
>> to name a few).
>
> There was a message from frobbit.se (see
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg88990.html ) and
> one from shinkuro.com (see
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg89388.html ). 
> There wasn't any message from arin.net or icann.org.  David Conrad
> recently started working for ICANN.

Well, but that was just the start of my list.  Steve Crocker is the
chair of the board of ICANN, and he's also the author of RFC 1 (among
many others), a former security AD, and an occasional contributor.

>> That is a statement of principle.  How do you believe it to be
>> incorrect?
>
> The IETF process is discussed in RFC 2026.  The text would require any
> changes to be done through that process.

Hang on.  I'm lost again.  What I thought I was responding to was this:

>       "Any modifications to the protocol parameter registry function
>        should be made using the IETF process"

> The above is incorrect.

What are we materially disagreeing on in the draft?

>
>> They've done fine thus far without having done so.
>
> This confuses people from developing countries (see
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-January/001012.html ).

Ok.  I personally disagree, but I will open an issue on this as well.

>
>
> Hi Eric,
> At 09:31 01-09-2014, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> There is a particular facet I think we want to make clear: there may
>> come a time when we need another distributed registry.  It's not that
>> hard to imagine.  If so, we will need to look at existing structures,
>> and assign/delegate accordingly.  Names and unicast IP addresses are
>> examples of protocol registries that have been assigned to other
>> organizations.
>
> Names and unicast IP addresses registries are managed by ICANN through
> the IANA Functions contract.  The IETF part has not been
> controversial.  I would suggest solving the IETF part.

Yes.  However, it's important for all to recognize that should we create
new registries, we may ask others to manage them, and those others may
or may not be those who manage existing registries.  Does that
recognition have to happen in our response?  I've opened an issue.

Eliot