Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 19 February 2015 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 264201A001C for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:54:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 D6v7F0DXN47O for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:54:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC9191A039C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:54:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.20.140] ([216.127.117.38]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t1JHs7t5021163 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:54:10 -0800
Message-ID: <54E61E27.3060504@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:32:23 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com>
In-Reply-To: <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:54:11 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/rVlZYweAfsRIHzMI5FEACITwV8M>
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 17:54:13 -0000

On 2/19/2015 8:03 AM, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:
> 
> I have heard some concerns from Jefsey about the scope of "IETF Trust"
> versus the Internet community, and one person observed, out of band,
> that the last bullet reads properly if it says "on behalf" instead of
> "in behalf".


(I'd wondered about on vs. in, too.)


The question of scope for the representation being provided is fair and
important.  From the context of the ICG consideration -- as opposed to
the context of our IETF discussion here -- it seems clear that this
topic really does concern the "Internet" community and not just the
"IETF" community.

So, indeed, any role of the IETF Trust with these names is on behalf of
the (general) Internet community.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net