IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Fri, 28 November 2014 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
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 10C5C1A0067 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:52:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Y15ZqmDkVgZu for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:18cc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D965A1A0052 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:52:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Timea ([193.239.221.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sASGpvpH016529; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 17:51:57 +0100
Message-ID: <8F4DFE900B7247A4970066274EA72CFC@Timea>
From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>, "John Curran" <jcurran@istaff.org>
References: <gk9vp636b67s93tt70wbtwew.1417192181318@email.android.com> <8503159c49e14990b2dda4f95f169045@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 17:52:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_012A_01D00B34.034801C0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/VOgG4a-gWY3xMJar6fS4dL59QAA
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, 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 16:52:05 -0000

"May be needed" is not, in my view, equivalent to "do need to be made".

Best,
Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Milton L Mueller 
  To: Richard Hill ; John Curran 
  Cc: Marc Blanchet ; Jari Arkko ; ianaplan@ietf.org 
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 5:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step


“However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community's expectations are met.” 

  Weak, admittedly, but it’s there. 

   

  From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hill
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 11:30 AM
  To: Milton L Mueller; John Curran
  Cc: Marc Blanchet; Jari Arkko; ianaplan@ietf.org
  Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step

   

  What language in the draft "indicate(s) that changes do need to be made post-NTIA"?

   

  Best Richard

   

   

  Sent from Samsung Mobile.

   

  -------- Original message --------

  From: Milton L Mueller 

  Date:28/11/2014 17:23 (GMT+01:00) 

  To: John Curran , rhill@hill-a.ch 

  Cc: Marc Blanchet , Jari Arkko , ianaplan@ietf.org 

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

   


  > -----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


  _______________________________________________
  Ianaplan mailing list
  Ianaplan@ietf.org
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Ianaplan mailing list
  Ianaplan@ietf.org
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email