IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Tue, 12 May 2015 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mueller@syr.edu>
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 65FD31A8830 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 04:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 xaV6z0qXNSfc for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 04:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.syr.edu (smtp2.syr.edu [128.230.18.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3E7F1A90C1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 04:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EX13-MBX-05.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-05.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.136]) by smtp2.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t4CBuW1G029047 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 May 2015 07:56:32 -0400
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-05.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.136) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Tue, 12 May 2015 07:56:32 -0400
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Tue, 12 May 2015 07:56:31 -0400
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com>, "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
Thread-Index: AQHQjBpMEY3mz9BPA0WCyomEcYFu4J13fEsAgACeGQCAAGDXAP//wXfA
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 11:56:31 +0000
Message-ID: <59edd953c1d349cfa377bcd72b514b7f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <5550F809.80200@cisco.com> <55511064.2000300@gmail.com> <CAOW+2dvBb4n4W=q7NoO_V1X+JoqvO1TWYBqPAEseY9T7vybj9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKFn1SEkBSfk5H5ZjOqfiyaxPak_62cNcRR-SDFH2JJ2HxQumA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKFn1SEkBSfk5H5ZjOqfiyaxPak_62cNcRR-SDFH2JJ2HxQumA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [193.173.25.97]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-05-12_04:2015-05-12,2015-05-12,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1505120151
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/d8PpaJG0GzxXlA-isrNqWoA68SI>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF
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, 12 May 2015 11:56:36 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> I don't see PTI as a pointless idea, what I see as a pointless idea is to have it
> as a subsidiary of ICANN. If we're going to go down that road, why not go all

Some of us pushed very hard to do that but ICANN and its supporters pushed back and others are afraid of the "instability" allegedly caused by a free-standing new entity. The separate legal affiliate was a middle ground. As a step in the right direction, it is an acceptable compromise imho.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email