Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN

Jefsey <> Sat, 02 May 2015 07:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781381A1A6D for <>; Sat, 2 May 2015 00:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.734
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.734 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l31fdeS7nsFQ for <>; Sat, 2 May 2015 00:13:37 -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 BD3861A0030 for <>; Sat, 2 May 2015 00:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:5563 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <>) id 1YoRcF-0005o0-TG; Sat, 02 May 2015 00:13:36 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 09:12:57 +0200
To: Bernard Aboba <>, John C Klensin <>
From: Jefsey <>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2du20HMW7DrnsgUpM4arYYz9BLSqL-P3xQrYN1tqcaH2mA@mail.g>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: "" <>, Seun Ojedeji <>, Andrew Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Update on IANA Transition & Negotiations with ICANN
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: Sat, 02 May 2015 07:13:38 -0000

At 20:32 01/05/2015, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>I would encourage others to leave it to them too -- attacks of
>speculation and amateur lawyering are rarely productive and tend
>to suppress more useful discussions."
>[BA] Similarly, I would not speculate about whether NTIA or members 
>of Congress did in fact evaluate the proposed SLA and render a 
>judgement or whether ICANN legal's interpretation of the NTIA-ICANN 
>contract was valid, since we have no information on the former and 
>the latter is a legal issue.

Correct. This is the IETF, not the UN.

The task here is to keep machines working in spite of the political, 
legal, economical, national, etc. influences/interferences. The real 
problem is that ICANN is an architectonical bug. This means that what 
it was designed (from the very begining, what is now emerging in the 
NTIA/ICANN understanding) with its fundamental BUG that ICANN 
considers as a feature and the NTIA as a necessity.

I am not convinced yet this BUG cannot be fixed. So I consider as a 
precautionary duty:

* trying to discover how NTIA, ICANN, IAB, I*Society could fix it.
* prepare a fail safe contingency strategy if they do not succeed or refuse it.

What I observe is that still at this stage even small IETF efforts to 
smooth a few problems is not considered by ICANN, and neither ICANN 
nor the IETF considers how to keep the internet stable in the 
expectable cas of local innitiatives to locally fix the ICANN BUG 
once it fully bears after the NTIA removal.

I frankly do not understand you since this is a double violation of:

1. the IEN 48 second motivation

This shows that your current attitude is in opposition with your 
(IETF/ICANN) own cultures?