Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus declared -- IETF IANAPLAN WG input to the ICG request for comments Re: Closing in on consensus (?) Re: Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

JFC Morfin <> Fri, 04 September 2015 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3459F1B34AA; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 03:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.949
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ywdkmhJ66EUZ; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 03:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A34B1B33BC; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 03:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:5717 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZXoK5-000763-AP; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 03:34:21 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:34:16 +0200
To: "Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat)" <>, "Ianaplan@Ietf. Org" <>
From: JFC Morfin <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1329405201==.ALT"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Message-Id: <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Marc Blanchet <>,,, IUWG General discussion mailing list <>,
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus declared -- IETF IANAPLAN WG input to the ICG request for comments Re: Closing in on consensus (?) Re: Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 10:34:26 -0000

Dear Leslie,

This position of yours seems reasonable within the new IETF 
framework. It definitely splits the world's catenet technical and 
political use between at least the ICANN and XLIBRE 
(<> RFC 6852 Global Communities. 
Two very different sizes and spirits now. It is reasonable to also 
foresee further governance reorganizations involving Europe, BRICs, 
and GAFAM virtual global network communities. I, therefore, consider 
that my hope of seeing an organized/agreed sustainable cooperative 
settlement reached through the appeal process has come to its 
expectable conclusion, but I had to give it a try.

I will, therefore, not appeal the ISOC board of trustees.

The difficulty now is to keep the catenet use stable and coopetitive 
enough to avoid technical conflicts as well as to prevent the 
pollution of the digktynet (the digisphere global network system : 
<> that some of us identify as 
the general area of interest for the informed users and Libre researchers.

We certainly favor a permissionless "intertest" charter for all the 
Global Communities to jointly agree on live experimentation terms and 
mutual reporting. We consider that the Section 5 - Experimentation of 
the ICANN ICP-3 document as a good initial working basis. The work 
carried out by Brian Carpenter in a past I_D could also be used.

One of our focuses in the coming months might be R&D concerning DDDS 
in conjunction with the DNS protocols and how this could lead to an 
open repository system of reference for the different Global 
Communities and their network technology coopetition: the home-root 
and super-IANA "plug-in".

Best regards,


At 15:18 31/08/2015, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Hi,
>Thanks, all, for the engaged discussion and suggestions to follow up 
>the IANAPLAN virtual interim meeting and proposed response to the 
>ICG request for comments on the combined IANA transition 
>proposal.  We are declaring consensus on the following text (same as 
>I last shared, copied for ease of reference):
>The IETF IANAPLAN WG has reviewed the draft ICG proposal within the
>context of the WG's charter (<ref>) — specifically, "Should proposals
>made by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA
>functions affect the IETF protocol parameter registries or the IETF, the
>WG may also review and comment on them."   The IETF IANAPLAN working
>group continues to believe that a transition away from a US Government
>role in IANA management and oversight is appropriate and confirms
>consensus of its participants that the draft proposal is not perceived
>to pose problems for the Protocol Parameters function or to interfere with
>the development or safe use of IETF standards.    The IETF raised two
>transition points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.
>We would ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the
>proposal as well.
>Leslie Daigle
>Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
>On 26 Aug 2015, at 12:45, Leslie Daigle (ThinkingCat) wrote: