Re: [Ianaplan] Time frame inquiry

[Benson Schliesser <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Leslie,
> On 02/06/2015 01:39, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:
> >
> > I think the result is shaping up well, and the response should be sent.
> On the question of who signs it:  As I have stated
> > elsewhere — I think it’s great to get the IETF’s input on the response,
> but I don’t see the IANAPLAN WG as having an operational
> > position to commit the IETF on such matters as timeframes for
> implementation.
> >
> > And if it’s not a WG matter, I don’t understand why the WG Chairs would
> sign it.
>
> Concur. If the IETF Chair, the IAB Chair, the IAOC Chair and the Trust
> Chair
> would co-sign it, we'd be in good shape.
>
>
I've been considering this topic, and I think Leslie's perspective and
Brian's proposal are reasonable. But to be honest, I'm comfortable with any
one of the approaches that have been proposed.

My earlier agreement with Russ' proposal stems from the understanding that
the ianaplan chairs were the recipients of the question. As such it makes
sense that they should sign this statement. But the IETF chair is the best
person to indicate IETF consensus. The IAOC chair is the best person to
indicate specific plans around the contracts etc. And the Trust chair (me)
is the best person to indicate our willingness regarding the trademarks etc.

That being said, 5 signatories is getting to the point of being silly. I'd
be equally happy to simply have Jari sign it on our behalf. It doesn't seem
worth laboring over - if there is consensus either way, then Jari has the
mandate as far as I'm concerned.

Cheers,
-Benson