Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available

John Curran <> Mon, 21 July 2014 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973611A0059 for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ebOxrvchAWO7 for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF1111A004B for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1X9G93-000GeH-0I; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:08:57 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Report-Abuse-To: (see for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX189PVKVr++kG/Xs8Du5dccF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: John Curran <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:08:54 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Avri Doria <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:08:59 -0000

On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Avri Doria <> wrote:

> I have no problem with the notion of an expectation that mostly
> parameters will be covered by IETF and names by GNSO and the ccNSO, and
> numbers by the NRO.  What I have problems with is the construction of
> silo walls that indicate an expectation that others might not have
> standing and ability to contribute to the proposed solutions on
> particular subjects.

Avri - 

Since the ICG charter specifically states that everyone's input is to be 
welcome across all topics, I'm not certain how anyone's contribution could 
be excluded for a lack of "standing"...  From how I read the process, any
such input will be considered by the ICG, and potentially provided back to 
the appropriate operational community for consideration; this is regardless 
of its origin.  (Of course, that's just my take based on the charter just 
published, I am not in London/Toronto nor part of the ICG.)

Do you read it differently?

Disclaimer:  My views alone - no IANA accountability mechanisms are proposed
             by way of this email.