IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] [theresa.swinehart@icann.org: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition]

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Mon, 04 May 2015 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.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 BD9191AD35A for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2015 04:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 bTR0GBpnb4ae for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2015 04:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x230.google.com (mail-qc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7217A1AD357 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2015 04:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcvz3 with SMTP id z3so20763524qcv.0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 May 2015 04:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=k0KmaeALTLWq8x1uGafc5t2P4IcOzk30ALeEUaKnJGw=; b=giA++cPbrVK85oaPnQUB2okVEfIIjVEzWhh3YVbjE/RjVPIu6SVaiDqAGzw+FzQSRT NrFQfPPEhK4/A+rHWPHcZp6Dc+y+Oz/Y126tmxzcoBDq5K4gbbud5ftcx3fIOdeYJ3rh ekhYL45Uwqn96SBC2aB8/LT2BinFs87W9wPeDr+NuP3LOaAOAsGpjjwFXVMgR3qdcGcI 80QC4mIDXR3Nr8kzGq/XtuzLNHj7J0tgevAiWtt3nYhk8drRNeaMrWFgMUBfbtP33tsY bVVjXD7sNbNA2aqKR76aontN+q3HtLffuD6BnXp5xgmZji/ZGZUA4FumfRVYpydtW5/K qKeA==
X-Received: by 10.55.41.93 with SMTP id p90mr35694162qkh.98.1430739678702; Mon, 04 May 2015 04:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.131] ([71.23.40.3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l11sm9684132qga.2.2015.05.04.04.41.17 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 May 2015 04:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-448FC7EF-F9A6-4A9D-9779-E325346E738F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
In-Reply-To: <5546F6F3.4030904@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 07:41:15 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7FE2604A-B393-4B79-94C7-C6776E9ACED3@gmail.com>
References: <20150501152117.GM68855@mx2.yitter.info> <CAOW+2dvEig9FDqKDtA26bwawbmgF+H+X_DJYbO5OjTy8nrpckw@mail.gmail.com> <92E5C2FA-25A9-46B2-9409-9D50DCB45942@istaff.org> <5546F6F3.4030904@cisco.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/c0U6Wijolu8T76xakr30rv980sA>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [theresa.swinehart@icann.org: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition]
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: Mon, 04 May 2015 11:41:20 -0000

On May 4, 2015, at 12:34 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> While that is a fair point as far as it goes, the next step probably should be ICANN consulting with us about going to NTIA with their concerns, if they think NTIA is blocking.  I suppose these open communications are leading to just that.  The contract, as I understand it, doesn't prohibit ICANN from entering agreements with NTIA's permission.

[BA] Exactly - which begs the question of why this did not happen initially.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email