Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> Sun, 02 November 2014 12:52 UTC
Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
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 D17FC1A878E; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 04:52:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.83
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no
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 6j8mFuXID4wc; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 04:52:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BFD01A8789; Sun, 2 Nov 2014 04:52:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 183.213.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.213.183]:41507 helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <jefsey@jefsey.com>) id 1Xkudg-0005Po-DE; Sun, 02 Nov 2014 04:52:12 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 13:52:05 +0100
To: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <6EF2CB0E-E705-46B9-B0AE-6F9BEB73D94E@gmail.com>
References: <54017E09.8060504@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140830052032.0c96c880@resistor.net> <54047E4A.30503@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140901094544.0b305698@resistor.net> <54059587.8070608@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20141024004255.0b5ef5d8@resistor.net> <4C1255B9-68C3-45D5-A618-2C7553386DF4@gmail.com> <54522E43.5020709@acm.org> <545428AC.3090802@gmail.com> <7471A339-3938-4D65-81ED-9E27A80EC32B@virtualized.org> <54546F63.1060708@cisco.com> <F0EE4BAE-0D60-4DB1-8FEA-C63E936B6150@virtualized.org> <54547321.8010203@cisco.com> <DD3A14C7-BD36-4371-8448-18861CB97CCD@virtualized.org> <DB420A8B-58DC-49CA-9129-5551C0F67335@viagenie.ca> <6EF2CB0E-E705-46B9-B0AE-6F9BEB73D94E@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/tuoJYzz9tmtj-O1KQBjgLLpQi74
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "iucg@ietf.org" <iucg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
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: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 12:52:17 -0000
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20141102125222.31370.15976.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>
Suzanne, IANAL but I know that contracts are protocols between people/organizations. Asking engineers to discuss contracts seems as sure as asking lawyers to write a technical standard RFC. At 16:51 01/11/2014, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >On the first-- as already pointed out, we've got existing IETF >authority (the MoU) and process (RFC 6761, with all the accompanying >machinery of writing drafts and making the case for a change in the >relevant registry under its rules). We've also got the machinery to >change that process if it's inadequate: normal IETF process for >updating or obsoleting an RFC, a WG whose charter includes such >namespace issues (DNSOP), and an IAB liaison statement sent to ICANN >specifically on this topic, also under IETF process and an existing >liaison relationship (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1351/). I >can speak as DNSOP co-chair that we're interested in input, because >applying RFC 6761 has already proven problematic and people keep >writing drafts that attempt it. And I can't speak for the IAB, but >response to the liaison statement would probably be welcome too. > >If people feel coordination on a specific "technical use names" >issue is needed, there are mechanisms in place today to do it. If >people feel better coordination process is needed (such as might >follow from a clearer definition of "technical use names"), there >are mechanisms in place today to create them too, and even recent >suggestions (the DNSOP re-charter, the IAB liaison statement) that >people might want to consider invoking them. I am afraid I do not see in which manner having mechanisms to achieve something makes it so that all of this will be achieved. RFC 2860 is clear about this: in case of a standing disagreement, RFC 2860 Section 4.3, Note: "In the event ICANN adopts a policy that prevents it from complying with the provisions of this Section 4 with respect to the assignments described in (a) - (c) above, ICANN will notify the IETF, which may then exercise its ability to cancel this MOU under Section 2 above." This language does not permit ICANN to be accountable concerning the NTIA's demand: "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS". The IETF has the ultimate capacity of decision and, therefore, responsibility (actually ISOC has it through the appeal process). >At 17:52 01/11/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >But that didn't happen, which suggests to me that the division of >labour, again, is working. IMHO, to make the past the guarantee of your future is to ensure that you will be fooled. >At 18:53 01/11/2014, David Conrad wrote: >Given the IETF has delegated administration via RFC 2860, I would >have thought it useful to formally include the delegatee in >discussions related to the resource (either domain names or IP >addresses) being discussed, not just have the decision be solely >dependent on the IESG's opinion. David, is this truly the "status quo" :-)? If I understand you, what ICANN wants is to control things through RFC 2960bis. I have 255 classes that I can use and IETF has a few thousand that it can freely affect. Perhaps it is time to contract that the ICANN/NTIA "IN" Class is the undisputed ICANN one. If there are too many or buggy TLDs in the root of that class, users will know about it and competition will play its role. jfc
- [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review David Conrad
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eric Burger
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Leslie Daigle (TCE)
- [Ianaplan] How to handle "customer" text and orde… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review S Moonesamy
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Justine Lera
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Avri Doria
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review David Conrad
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review David Conrad
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review David Conrad
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Marc Blanchet
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Suzanne Woolf
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review David Conrad
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Avri Doria
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review - more (po… John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review JFC Morfin