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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 42C101A0024 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 izun02tdcoQh for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9C2B1A008B for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by padhz1 with SMTP id hz1so1968332pad.9 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GU8q/LjjJCphX7LKYw8S3sQ7TPbjE5HTs80pn9Eny2w=; b=myHE2A1D/HSFtRZh5qxKTgeKwEHfoXejP3CYNlCrJzLU8f1eM7lwd0pFHT/aoEvO9f CkdlfccK02xRJ3QNxh6TDYjFgwY4KbgC045ojLyo1Wyga3pkCX7n9yM0kiR1qlzfF8WG mke5IRIKAptfidjx6VQlPaf09otUv0CTYpe8KsQcso6hZ42qtsiI9ViPhBeO0N+vJHl0 phMHSUQn4kQylM4b/lw+IsrIHRI1kpRBXCr4tP9P42GtQ9CQlG57594NXqEILaQH3XPZ yylyrvdhasDjkPOAIwou6lcaVgg3qETmSkZBvPM7FWO6LKgqsqjwdhQXcvh7yw+YRCTk EffA==
X-Received: by 10.68.201.168 with SMTP id kb8mr10199829pbc.89.1424374408035; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:652c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:652c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pd8sm12038931pdb.93.2015.02.19.11.33.25 for <ianaplan@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:33:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54E63A9E.7030202@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:33:50 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <54E214E9.3020103@thinkingcat.com> <54E60949.6050706@thinkingcat.com> <54E61E27.3060504@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <54E61E27.3060504@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/v2r-xzLkPOPrEzk5R6-DC3ftB80>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG
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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:33:32 -0000

On 20/02/2015 06:32, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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.

IANAL, but the formal beneficiary of the IETF Trust is the IETF. It's for
the Trust to ask its own counsel whether this matters.

That doesn't affect what this WG says, though.

    Brian