IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Tue, 02 September 2014 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.org>
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 D10841A0437 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 07:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 QCoMKMNWO_0P for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 07:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com (mail-pd0-f173.google.com [209.85.192.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89A8D1A0452 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 07:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id p10so8697020pdj.4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 07:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=uCkTHVgkXu8TcfUXuOtzzLs39xLv8obp88H1SnQ/T9I=; b=HOALwgFfmR4BJvNHcItgehUsLKZpuF64s0EXyV85rMROXjnwalz0gek/Fo1qkSpaNQ plE9RvVT6HDE0SwrSlKhwtIzS2GtX0I9hZC/IrGBVyTbq0Y60h9vQP1JIi4XCU+LVdAn 9NEtkjruVF6egihj5NESjFaoNS835NLS8EsJ9GRtWpgeBmDeYI/pF/8IjEzhRjdP/YkH m5yqjmlVK9fErKjRNYRfqOYq80YSHArrbMISlIJvfGNaL+Wy3ht8WJ7K2V+UK+KuesLs Vo2Sc/fKR5YztXX5FLGIZTLbluq423U9hE89XmPdTVYcMdlfr8x9jTiNXPDOvlGYhnHd L+zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmn59zbdY24qbgOHY8AhhGESb723+tebt665VkdhrE2270CXF3V2lig7sJstc8geFXOL/GR
X-Received: by 10.70.9.129 with SMTP id z1mr36957427pda.37.1409668705166; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 07:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.11] ([73.162.11.38]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cb2sm4215376pbb.34.2014.09.02.07.38.23 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Sep 2014 07:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_27D42A0E-68CE-432E-9A32-37F3A4AA6D3B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <5405D188.5070508@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 07:38:22 -0700
Message-Id: <FB7609FA-2146-475F-A3D0-F924895146EC@virtualized.org>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNOEGHCKAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <54059FA9.50107@meetinghouse.net> <5405A18B.2060604@cs.tcd.ie> <5405CDEF.6040302@meetinghouse.net> <5405CF6B.3050704@cisco.com> <5405D188.5070508@meetinghouse.net>
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/bczLvGDJFswMr6r7pjNop8iTMuA
Cc: ianaplan@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: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:38:28 -0000

Miles,

On Sep 2, 2014, at 7:17 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> It's awfully important (IMHO) to have a definitive registry for protocol parameters.  

Yes.

> Right now ICANN provides the registry, under the aegis of both the NTIA contract and the MOU.  

Yes, although as Brian and others have pointed out, the relevance of the NTIA contract is questionable.

> What will be the process if IETF decides that the job isn't being done well and wants to replace ICANN as the registry operator?  

Perhaps something similar to the replacement of the RFC Editor (not to say that it wasn’t being performed well, rather that there was a process established to change it).

> What if ICANN decides it wants to levy fees?  

If the IETF community decides that is unreasonable, it’d probably trigger the replacement.  The MoU, after all, is terminable.

> Who makes such decisions, and how?  Etc.

Who decided to replace the RFC Editor, and how?

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email