Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

John Curran <> Sat, 24 January 2015 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA721A037B for <>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 14:22:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32vVsf3KGkAr for <>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 14:22:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDA181A004D for <>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 14:22:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <>) id 1YF95r-0002UK-Ou; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:22:15 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP
X-Report-Abuse-To: (see for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19aT2GSFIeaitDfOJ3kRXRL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: John Curran <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 17:22:13 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Avri Doria <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
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: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:22:19 -0000

On Jan 24, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Avri Doria <>; wrote:
> ...
> I know that in the Names community work, gaining an understanding of the legal environment and the way of actually dealing with the legal points of appeals and possible future decisions to remove the function from ICANN  before the crisis point, is a gating concern and part of the reason are still working on developing our response - we need legal advice before we can complete our work.  But in that case there is no doubt that the legal aspects are in scope for the Cross community WG.
> Perhaps once the Names community has completed its work, and I hope it is real soon, there will be some clue that can be used on legal arrangements and appeals mechanisms by the other communities, upon recommendation from the ICG.

Please explain the above…  it almost appears that you are suggesting 
that the ICG would make some form of recommendation with respect to 
various legal implementation aspects (e.g. arbitration rules and location)

> As for whether ICG experts should be expected to understand the intricacies of the arrangements supplied by the 3 communities, I am sure that each group having picked its finest, they are certainly capable of doing so,  And I beleive that as a group coordinating the puzzle of the partial responses from all communities they need to do so to figure out how to fit the 3 answers (once the have the 3) into a consistent response for NTIA.

The ICG needs to make sure that the integrated proposal meets the NTIA
criteria.   The ICG charter does not include any form of proposal development 
work; if there are problems with the component proposals, then the ICG is to 
communicate that back to the relevant communities so that the communities
can address the issues.  

This is particularly important when if comes to contractual matters, since it
might easily be the case the optimum structure for the IETF/IAB to contract
for IANA protocol parameter services might truly be different than the optimum 
structure for the RIR community to contract for IANA services for the various
central number registries, or the names community to contract, etc.  There is 
no requirement these contractual structures be the same, only that the specific 
arrangements do not preclude assembly of a single combined proposal.


Disclaimer: my views alone.