Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 01 November 2014 00:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A751A8756 for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zm8t2jyyi4YF for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C1661A8753 for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v10so8125063pde.22 for <>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VH88cEMSpNuH+x1ILGH9TIVdmkN90GLn2Xo44oXRK/g=; b=AZLAMKP1lLi+Q53lXi5tfr1dLzgNT/vHmR9c0OXRDbMmnxV5lySnTBsZwmEzL1vDTv VTvsdFehtKtFrhpSykPGpUOxI/nQg7Ra7wdVLgQOzIZK6R7ARw86w9LhYP2suMXDTqCA vwst4ZQ15Xrt90tt1Bi3p8oDPrPoXLbu/EoV9TE6bY340bIKiSKWHiiaxu9z74v8Vv9x VF2BFr/Eknb+i77y99a3JItSDC2prRffpg6re6/4zl5u+ovo0a8N/5SUnJuwrmbngbib yZpGVRXIhqOxuoOOUD1wiZzfL1iLB1WkRzyvdblyEE8g4m6Gz/0xi1+jfYLHnwqDo3gL tQ9w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id k10mr73306pdn.143.1414801573015; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id ub7sm10932782pbc.30.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 13:26:20 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Avri Doria <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 00:26:15 -0000

On 31/10/2014 01:25, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 24-Oct-14 21:50, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> (For example, we'd want input from people intimately familiar with matters ICANN in any process to revisit RFC 6761, whether they were ICANN staff or not.)
> I must admit this is one I have been worrying about as a person who
> inhabits both spaces.  For me it is the one of stress tests the plans
> need to measure against.  Does ICANN, the names operational community,
> have anything to say about 6761 TLDs?

I'm sure they have something to say and that it should be listened to.
But under the IETF-ICANN MoU the power of decision is with the IETF,
subject to IETF process.

>>From one perspective, why would they?
>>From another, why wouldn't they?
> and how does a possibly fragmented IANA(s) deal with the issue?

By each fragment joining in the IETF process. Actually this illustrates
the power of the IETF participation model: we're obliged to consider
the views expressed by IANA people as part of the process of judging rough
consensus. And we'd be really stupid not to.