Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 4, 2014, at 4:35 PM, Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> John Curran wrote:
>> ....
>> None of this involves negotiation, posturing, or planning for failure; it is
>> simply be fulfilling the request by the ICG to provide complete responses -
>> if the IETF feels there is a potential issue with the present arrangements
>> in this area post-transition, then it is my understanding that the IETF
>> is obligated to at least note the existing working arrangement in its RFP
>> response to the ICG.
> 
> As the submission, from the multiple stake-holder communities hit the ICG, and as those sitting at the ICG table attempt to reconcile the multiple proposals into one, do you really believe there isn't going to be any conflict and negotiation involved in merging things into a single proposal that everyone will sign off on?

I was quite specific: _responding to ICG RFP_ only requires identification of the
current working arrangements among the various parties, not negotiations.

> Personally, I think that considerable conflict and negotiation can't be avoided - and I expect, at some point, NTIA is going to have to step in and play mediator.  (Just one man's opinion, of course).

Quite unlikely: we have one opportunity to work together to prepare a transition 
plan for the stewardship of the IANA - if we are unable to accomplish that,
the failure is entirely ours (not USG/NTIA) and one should expect the status 
quo to be sustained....

If the community can't come together to make a cohesive plan, then it
would irresponsible to transition IANA to their collective stewardship.

/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.