IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Mon, 01 September 2014 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
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 BB27D1A066D for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 08:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 KTgnYr3sSuDo for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 08:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:18cc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 687FC1A0AFE for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 08:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-38-80-172.adslplus.ch [178.38.80.172]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s81FMlRW008253; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 17:22:47 +0200
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, ianaplan@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:22:38 +0200
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNCEGACKAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <54047E4A.30503@cisco.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/lbPE6dm1N-Z3Dgd4YIDVES_jtds
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch
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, 01 Sep 2014 15:42:54 -0000

Dear Eliot,

Please see embedded comment below.

Thanks and best,
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
> Sent: lundi, 1. septembre 2014 16:10
> To: S Moonesamy; ianaplan@ietf.org
> Cc: Russ Housley
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
> 
> 
> Hi SM,
> 
> 
> On 8/30/14, 4:38 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> > Hi Eliot,
> > At 00:32 30-08-2014, Eliot Lear wrote:

SNIP

> >
> > ICANN may have to adjust its bylaws if RFC 6220 is to be followed.
> 
> They've done fine thus far without having done so.

Yes, but, but thus far there has been a contract between NTIA and ICANN that clearly had precedence over the ICANN bylaws.  Since RFC 6220 was consistent with the NTIA/ICANN contract, there was no issue.

The exercise that we are engaged in is to see what, if anything, might be needed to replace the contract between NTIA and ICANN.

In my opinion, it is not sufficiently clear that the ICANN Bylaws do not imply that ICANN has the ultimate authority for the allocation and assignment of protocol parameters.

So I think that the ICANN Bylaws should be modified to make it clear that IETF has the ultimate authority for the allocation and assignment of protocol parameters.

But I recognize that others on this list do not share that view.

Best,
Richard
> 
> Eliot
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email