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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

All,

I wanted to post something on this thread that isn’t merely a reaction to the previous e-mail.

This has been a long thread, and I’m not sure we’ve always succeeded in having a clear discussion, let alone avoid repetition of the same arguments. I wanted to share my thoughts on this at a more principle level, however.

I think we are in a process where we can and must design the future in the best possible way. Including dealing with possible contingencies. And the design process is very public, everyone’s actions being visible to the global community. I do not think we should do anything else than what best works for us. We do not need to be afraid of proposing to do the right thing.

But there is of course the question of what that right thing is. In my mind, the primary criteria is that it works for the IETF. That we can do our work, and can continue to do our work in the future. Not less, but also not more.

We also have to recognise that we live in a global Internet and within an ecosystem of other parties dealing with other issues. Whatever we do needs to be co-operative such that the needs of all parties employing the domain name can be accommodated.

Per the charter of the WG, we are expected to specify the transition plan. We do not have to (and indeed should not) specify procedural or contractual details. However, the group needs to deliver clear instruction on what it expects to happen, so that specialists and perhaps other parties can do what is necessary.

(And I think what is currently proposed at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-ianaplan-1.pdf fits the above and I have no problem with it.)

Jari