Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Fri, 25 July 2014 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
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 107B81A03E7 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.792
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 Hyi7Us_eY-TL for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.246.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCFF61A01E2 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=In-Reply-To:To:References:Date:Subject:Mime-Version:Message-Id:Content-Type:From; bh=zObx3hGnPxit5MF7q0dkmyNYz3EOT9L7GCBSptfDmQ8=; b=iqzWwOBDeE3giS1/UZ5lutl1bfcZGgVQ189CUpX6SzWdbmUStkRE07ltWzk/bMM2hVmOv+r0tkLErhaW970F6Yh9mN9ht1JONXuEAtINHj6r7KP66CicOpMwVWZ7AVywKGbiDQc1CvVUIokxCaHKPVlRlbAf38jYrVtZlRxuj1I=;
Received: from ip68-100-74-115.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.74.115]:49628 helo=[192.168.15.115]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1XAjEl-0007oy-Pq for internetgovtech@iab.org; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:25:00 -0700
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A95D4F28-2CD6-4892-AB28-89B76EA94440"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Message-Id: <3704DAB7-2748-45A6-8373-F606CE152390@standardstrack.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:24:55 -0400
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> <9045EC0A-E123-4CDC-B87F-5BC32C644C85@istaff.org> <53CD57E8.4000909@acm.org> <B7163126-31B6-4CC6-A711-F225051C294A@istaff.org> <53CD8F41.9060909@gih.com> <53CD939D.5020001@cisco.com> <9DE8F705-9748-407D-8E77-7B787ACD9873@gmail.com> <53CE4B39.1090202@acm.org> <53D016B6.20200 00@gih.com> <53D01E6B.8020606@gmail.com> <53D025F3.5050708@acm.org> <53D02828.1030805@gmail.com> <53D02D53.6070501@acm.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20140724012237.0ce22978@resistor.net> <9DBA0ECE-D26D-463F-858A-B990B68BDDD1@istaff.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20140724084607.0bb21040@elandnews.com> <9A1009CB-2617-4809-A318-11DCD34E6504@istaff.org> <53D1C521.3030809@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <53D23F93.4050002@gmail.com> <2FD26F0B-73B4-4D01-9FC8-F4351609435B@shinkuro.com> <079CDDE7-D1CF-4A7C-A413-395CEC4C100A@cs.georg etown.edu>
To: internetgovtech@iab.org
In-Reply-To: <079CDDE7-D1CF-4A7C-A413-395CEC4C100A@cs.georgetown.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/8KQ5uC4iz041ihkzKyIeweBdj9s
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community
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: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:25:03 -0000

I would offer John’s scenario is not totally made up, in that something similar already happened. The real situation provides proof that we can work with ICANN. What I am thinking of is the SLD block list. That was a community effort, recognized reality, and brought ICANN, IETF, manufacturers, ISP, etc. together to work through the problem. So, I am not desirous of formalizing some sort of process that might have worked for the last war (SLD’s, or gTLD collisions) when the next war is something completely different. I am OK with our informal relationship, as ICANN has shown it can work with us, and we have shown we can work with ICANN.


On Jul 25, 2014, at 7:47 AM, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:

> On Jul 25, 2014, at 7:29 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> ICANN is working on a new round of gTLDs or some such. Of course they
>>> exclude already reserved TLDs, but not stuff that might be coming up
>>> (because they don't know it).
>> 
>> That's already a failure of coordination.
> 
> I don’t understand the basis for the above statements.
> 
> ICANN has not yet begun formulating the next round of gTLDs.  As part of the process, there will be consultation on what issues arose during the first round.  Consultation with the IETF re current and future reserved names is definitely and obviously part of what needs to be included.
> 
> There are multiple avenues of coordination between the IETF and ICANN.  The coordination is broad and deep.  Some of it is structural and some is pragmatic.  It is ongoing and effective.  The last important incident of uncoordinated activity that I’m aware was in another dimension entirely, viz the scheduling of meetings, and that was dealt with quite firmly.
> 
> Steve
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internetgovtech mailing list
> Internetgovtech@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech