Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

JFC Morfin <> Mon, 02 February 2015 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118781A8733 for <>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:55:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.632
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TdmKKyVBHdmJ for <>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:55:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CDC11A797C for <>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:55:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:40838 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <>) id 1YILDX-0005X5-5W; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:55:23 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:55:06 +0100
To: Alissa Cooper <>,
From: JFC Morfin <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_-1678732748==.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
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
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: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:55:26 -0000
Message-ID: <>

Dear Alissa,

As far as I am concerned, I understand that the "Libre" has no 
specific "internal" interest in the ICG anymore, since our only link 
was the preeminence of the IAB as an ICANN accountability master. 
They have now severed that link and transferred it to the NTIA, which 
is for us an external stakeholder just as any other one. This also 
means that the ICG is for us another stakeholder.

Since we favor an omnistakeholder approach, we are certainly 
interested in external relations with the ICG, the same as with the 
IETF, IAB, IEEE, W3C, NDNconsortium, Unicode consortium, IGF, the 
members of the GAC, ICANN, ITU, and everyone else. However, we do not 
understand how most of them wish/plan to establish such relations.

Our own plan is at the image of our concepts and capacities: a 
cooperative company of the catenet (CCC) where every shareholder has 
one vote. This is a simple concept but not a simple task to gather 
the initial founders, write the appropriate by-laws, and specify, 
develop, and operate the corresponding networked management tools. So 
we hope we can incorporate as a seed, with a good global command of 
our project, before the completion of the ICANN/NTIA agreement.

This does not prevent earlier relations. Please advise as to the best 
way for both of us to proceed.

Thank you.
jfc morfin

At 01:56 31/01/2015, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>I realize there has been significant discussion on this thread, so 
>the note below from the ICG may appear belated, but I wanted to 
>share it nonetheless.
>The ICG suggests that you take all comments the ICG has forwarded to 
>you from 
>about your proposal or the process of creating it as if they were 
>made inside your process and address them as you normally would.
>The ICG is aware of the comments. If the ICG has specific questions 
>to you based on the comments we will explicitly ask them to you as 
>part of our normal ICG process just like any other question we may have.
>Let me know if you have questions.
>Alissa on behalf of the ICG
>On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Alissa Cooper 
><<>> wrote:
>>After draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response was submitted to the ICG, 
>>the ICG received the following comment: 
>>Ianaplan mailing list
>Ianaplan mailing list