IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt> (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 19 June 2013 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37FE21E80CA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EFnGKLi32Zhf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com (mail-pd0-f177.google.com [209.85.192.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AD821E80C7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id p10so5409151pdj.22 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
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:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BrKqEfUQ0zyDItBkCrZ8Yedt1QlAsmar7OA+HbwHBmk=; b=B/dFQTSnr4MkhX32I+C1LAnXjldsLBsl7LQhpoQ9yMtVbkCKUmsGWwCtfaur8XH1K8 lIfPg+5bVVbVjMc/rcwn3tG/slR//GVqPhztzm9p1T4qV9F42120ltSjd3dzmV9splDb 45gSLJcDZe0hafNBa8aqceUHlbzHyZreF1OSFyjfAVxfjYzd7cgZBNMciWd7Qk1L+ZgS J3URRl+y7GyVVbb0F/uoYYjIY391DJiaOdEgKD5TqF1fGYwTMDOjeAlhFVmtNnkU745t S9JFvr1dcZjORdzHeoK6/EHV7F2SjylWVw/meLJqMmZ72gDYcuHA6vVSN3xNf3DxDAbb lp5w==
X-Received: by 10.68.239.194 with SMTP id vu2mr1096294pbc.152.1371673748720; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (36.200.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.200.36]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ty8sm26205583pac.8.2013.06.19.13.29.06 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51C21498.3020008@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:29:12 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
Subject: Re: IETF, ICANN and Whois (Was Re: Last Call: <draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt> (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC)
References: <F14A1FD640A19C37C743AFC2@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAL9jLaZncSO_nnpe0wPgfsEY9zGnCj=N0tE_8MyXZ1gL6re+cA@mail.gmail.com> <4357630D-9FF4-4A6E-91E9-4731B02FD4FA@piuha.net> <D6B2DDFE-1C83-4FD0-9646-576F2F437239@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <D6B2DDFE-1C83-4FD0-9646-576F2F437239@frobbit.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:29:15 -0000

On 19/06/2013 18:25, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 18 jun 2013, at 18:54, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 
>> As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things to be improved in ICANN. I'd suggest though that some of the feedback might be better placed in an ICANN discussion than on IETF list. And is not like there'd be nothing to improve on our side :-) Lets focus on IETF aspects here.
> 
> I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very active participant in ICANN (chair of SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some "more" technical standards where developed in IETF, 

A pre-condition for that is that technical and operational problem statements
are formulated, which could be sent to appropriate WGs or used to justify
a BOF. If ICANN could focus on that instead of solutionism or committeeism,
progress should be possible.

    Brian

> and moved forward along standards track, that ICANN can reference. Same with some epp-related issues, and also DNS-related, which I must admit I think has stalled in the IETF. When that happens, ICANN start to "invent" or at least discuss IETF related issues -- which I think is non optimal. But on the other hand, if IETF do not move forward, then what should ICANN do?
> 
> I will btw be the first few days (until including Tuesday or so) at IETF in Berlin and am happy to discuss this issue with anyone interested.
> 
>    Patrik Fältström
>    Chair SSAC, ICANN
> 
> .
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email