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

Seun Ojedeji <> Tue, 22 July 2014 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7517D1B28A5 for <>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_92=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2k5EMdvqRSdk for <>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97D8A1A0126 for <>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id bs8so1042476wib.2 for <>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=D5ZBOsJLhbK6K5L+CHt/ubS0wbeiWNRgxmzJZAk5PQ4=; b=BpHeoct5wdTnXbW534NPWrFTYiCgr3QKNzjf853QR69OPH4CrkErknD+1fwbbme5zK w84hUeEQLlgfGzDKJ940gLktgWpJHMqM/72XFthX3gJqNCSK5fBu+ry/YZqsASAqtZy1 JAPIoJTuE4GtfVxsgpOnPc+B5uB4D7G47Mm3udDy7LnCPxzruk9Ldx2YcBOgRLVif3PH +mhzcmsShQenZV7c0nh+HGjD9D9zxVo/8Zmx/FFrgdNk3VC2sSYRX82NHSDDh3k/ZIbl Tak8A1TGuV9iB0urg7kauii+5isF+7oLeA+f/KSdGpIV2JnV9oBChIQ59sYPu6l9hIwQ LJnA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s1mr37360292wjz.21.1406058664863; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Seun Ojedeji <>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:50:34 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: S Moonesamy <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0102fedc40adf404fecd8be8"
Cc:, Avri Doria <>
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: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:51:10 -0000

Hi SM,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, S Moonesamy <> wrote:

> Hi Seun,
> At 07:30 21-07-2014, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> This was one the concern i raised within the number community[1]. The
>> thing is the process is trying to be organisaed however the attempt is
>> making possibility of getting diverse contribution more complex and less
>> probable.
> The concern in that message was about the process for the various numbers
> communities.  It isn't directly related to the protocol parameters
> registry.  I'll mention that I have previously reviewed numbers-related
> requests in IETF drafts.  Several persons who have posted on this thread
> (and another one) have an interest in names.  They didn't mention concerns
> about the names side.
> I took a quick look at the proposed charter.  According to that document
> the coordination group will be acting as a clearinghouse for proposals
> about the various IANA Functions.  There is already some discussion in the
> IETF about the process for the protocol parameter Function.  As I am
> already familiar with the IETF process I did not consider it as useful to
> ask questions about that process at this stage.
> One thing that I found odd is why this discussion is taking place on this
> IAB mailing list instead of the venues for the relevant communities.

Well you are right about this; i posted here about numbers to qualify the
"names" interest. On whether my concern was discussed in relevant
community, well can i assume you are also subscribed on that AFRINIC IANA
list, as it sure looks like the list is in listening mode ;).[1] The other
reason why i do respond on comments that is of interest on any list is
because right now there is no global space to discuss the transition
process. For instance, the charter which ICG refer to as a draft and say is
up for comment does not have a clear process on how they receive comments
beyond the 3 communities. The charter indicates that its open and at the
same time will receive contribution from the 3 communities; how about those
who like to comment on names for instance but belong to the numbers
community(it seem like a community based restriction to me). I had thought
a global space will be maintained and the ICG will let us know that they
are watching the list for comments.

 This is where I will get blamed for starting the (previous) off-topic
> thread.
> Please note that I do not have any concern about the following.  The
> problem [1] is that the proposed (coordination) charter does not provide
> much information about the process.  From that document:

  (c) Please clarify how the comments will be reviewed.

This is the summary of what i am trying to communicate.

1. I have posted my view on the list about the numbers process in engaging
its community and Adiel indicated he will check the possibility out with
the other RIRs. Will be good to read your view via that medium also.

> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 1. I picked the first word that came to my mind.


*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
<> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:

The key to understanding is humility - my view !