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

Russ Housley <> Mon, 21 July 2014 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E981A002A for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FE9Y3K-z9VK2 for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35BA91A0063 for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:144:6233:4bff:fe20:eb18]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBFD4E75E; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:16:42 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:16:42 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Avri Doria <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
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 14:16:50 -0000


>> The ICG charter:
> I have a question of the slice and dice methodology for the topics into
> 3 categories.
> Does the IETF, though it includes the protocol work on DNS and the tools
> to support the likes of WHOIS functionality and the design on numbering
> systems, plan to only contribute 'outputs' on protocol parameters?
> Not commenting for now on the orphan issues - things NTIA stewards a
> that don't fit into any of the 3 defined operational groups.  that is a
> problem for other messages.
> I understand why various organization may be the ones to take the first
> shot and even the lead on various issues, I am concerned that we
> building walls to who can prodice recommendations that need to be
> coordinated on which aspects.  I think that silo orientation is a losing
> methodology and is one that put too much control in the hands of the IGC.

The IETF community will be responsible for the proposal for protocol parameters. I expect that interested individuals will be working with the name community or the numbers community to make sure that the right things are happening in each of those proposals as well.  Coordination will be needed where there is overlap, such as anycast addresses and special-purpose names.  That said, once the whole proposal is stitched together, it will be reviewed by all three communities and many other interested parties.