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

Patrik Fältström <> Mon, 21 July 2014 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173F21A0362 for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.252
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y_JIIykGUX7p for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C80901A035E for <>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C87D32286B; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:20:53 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_55310A25-16F9-4474-890C-F0B53A8B0F1B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Patrik Fältström <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:20:44 +0200
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 18:21:01 -0000

On 21 jul 2014, at 18:27, Avri Doria <> wrote:

>> Do you read it differently?
> Yes.  I read it as saying the while comments can be accepted by all,
> outputs/proposals seem to only come from the 3 designated operational
> actors, each restricted to their assigned topic.
> I.e. first there are proposals from the 3 operational assignees on their
> assigned topic
> then there is broader input on the transition proposal

Avri, let me express it differently.

There are _main_ categories and _main_ holders of processes for each one of them. But there are (as you pointed out yourself) a few IANA "things" that are not so clear where they fit, and there are groups (like SSAC) that is chartered to work with all three.

What the CG have identified already now is that the maturity of the PDP and relationship between the policy development and IANA is different for the various categories, and we found it being good to already now identify that fact, and that it might be that the various categories must be treated slightly differently.

No one like silos, and that is definitely not the intention. Trust me!

It is to not create too many dependencies between various processes that have different maturity.