Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Fri, 25 July 2014 04:13 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 1AC541A0AD6 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 UOvWRT_E6CVM for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:13:05 -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 0FE5C1A0AC9 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 21:13:04 -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 1XAWsR-0001S0-4n; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:13:03 +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: U2FsdGVkX1/fnHLy5Yjyhd81/rCatrSu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <53D1C521.3030809@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:12:58 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6C7547BD-9397-4957-B2D2-0C2BB314D350@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> <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>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/aTxZnNJ1MExcVjmbdShqNmDy1TU
Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
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 04:13:06 -0000

On Jul 24, 2014, at 10:46 PM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> What, if any, provisions are there currently to avoid such a problem? What, if any, additional provisions would we need to avoid such a problem in the future.
> 
> Please note that "we can talk to each other" doesn't work here; the example is explicitly constructed that way :-(.

Inter-party communication and coordination is the key to avoiding such a problem, 
but avoiding such a conflict isn't an option for a pre-existing condition as you 
have specified.  The short answer I expect is that the language in the MOU between 
ICANN and the IAB/ IETF would likely govern the outcome.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.