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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 23 May 2015 11:12 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 C8C071ACD91 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 May 2015 04:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 7BgRy0bMcuo7 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 May 2015 04:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2499D1ACD8C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 May 2015 04:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F38BED8; Sat, 23 May 2015 12:12:36 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vDTx_GpLS1MZ; Sat, 23 May 2015 12:12:34 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.46.24.221]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FE47BE75; Sat, 23 May 2015 12:12:34 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <5560609E.6020801@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 12:12:30 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "'ianaplan@ietf.org'" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
References: <5550F809.80200@cisco.com> <59edd953c1d349cfa377bcd72b514b7f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <C3D17473E06220755959AB78@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <27ed27614a6b47729043610f09ac197f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <88F741BF3D4C2A597622A70C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <44A0F230-A98C-4060-88E2-B20FE1DE1FC5@isoc.org> <14ff00ba1aae45f2a8f4befb896e2a08@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <D17525F2-190B-4D00-AEBE-5AD96BA79E79@arin.net> <A026656644A030B7130B94B5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <ad1d0707ff1b44eb9e48fef18d8e1268@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <687222FF507C0D3EDBD9CAAA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <000001d091f7$266de3f0$7349abd0$@ch> <51ce19bc2a93443586adcdd2fac3888a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <555BD28F.10402@gmail.com> <97E5874491A30994EC386C37@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <555CEDFF.5010601@gmail.com> <51E8C05D9CFB07754ECD13F5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <DM2PR0301MB065543B4DCBCB751656B563DA8C20@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <a78386a2666240d48be0aba1fb543e75@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <555DE2E7.2010201@cs.tcd.ie> <556019E6.9020401@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <556019E6.9020401@cisco.com>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Qcg6jfdtVFDolwetgLb5athCpmPhWlrvt"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/nYj6JdBAXirj2fbddO7WiLTDSlo>
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: Sat, 23 May 2015 11:12:43 -0000


On 23/05/15 07:10, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> You asked this question:
> 
> On 5/21/15 3:51 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> So I'd be interested in hearing from other folks [...] who think
>> that the IETF ought do something directly involving the PTI (e.g.
>> to re-open the MoU to change the partner involved or something.)
> 
> To me I think there are aspects of moving to the PTI model which are 
> quite attractive over time, because depending on how it is
> implemented, the PTI can provide for better separation from the
> naming community and associated politics.
> 
> But there are many many risks involved with adopting that approach
> in haste.  Maybe there will be opportunities over time to take
> advantage of the benefits, once we have some understanding as to how
> to manage the drawbacks that have been discussed on this list (there
> may be more).  My point is that we should not forever shut the door
> on the approach.
> 
> It's not clear to me that this involves reopening the MoU.  Most of
> the hard lifting has to be done at ICANN and how they are organized,
> and how funding works.  Some of that probably should be considered by
> them now, because it may be harder to fix later, but as we have
> something that works reasonably well now, and some of those issues
> are quite knotty, and there is only so much time in the day, if the
> transition is to happen, ICANN may need to address other more
> pressing concerns.

That sounds reasonable to me. If a PTI thing works out well
I could see us after some time has elapsed maybe wanting our
SLA or maybe even MoU to evolve to take account of all of
that. I don't see us doing that now though.

So maybe our overall reaction to the CWG thing ought be
something like "Hi CWG, go for the PTI thing as you like, all
we ask is that you bear in mind that we might or might not
want to join in with that later in some yet-to-be-determined
shape or form after it's been seen to be working out well."

S.

> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
> list Ianaplan@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>