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

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Mon, 21 July 2014 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@istaff.org>
X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973611A0059 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ebOxrvchAWO7 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF1111A004B for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-108-56-179-253.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([108.56.179.253] helo=[192.168.1.10]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jcurran@istaff.org>) id 1X9G93-000GeH-0I; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:08:57 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Originating-IP: 108.56.179.253
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html 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 <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <53CD291E.1020801@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:08:54 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <74A399C5-BDA0-4DDB-A52A-BC2F6D98222F@istaff.org>
References: <A193D048-2B67-469A-93BA-C61BB362DA75@vigilsec.com> <53CD1E8A.1060804@acm.org> <FA4238C4-ADDC-435F-9591-E3B074C2F6F6@vigilsec.com> <53CD2300.5050307@acm.org> <20140721143105.GH16966@mx1.yitter.info> <53CD291E.1020801@acm.org>
To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/0nYDjMZrhEWq6RYNBZiPDdK6cT4
Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available
X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <internetgovtech.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/>
List-Post: <mailto:internetgovtech@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:08:59 -0000

On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> 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?
/John

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