Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 25 July 2014 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 C07691AD972 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 mh5FW99UKP64 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C581B278C for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.134.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6P7qhXb019621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406274781; x=1406361181; bh=dTCY6WYLgtzqknUjLZlaj5Id4FUFWuptXvovYov29RU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=db7l/GcUAZ2D8YQZbLOQX3vDedXP6HZIIL9ShVmD4Bcu0JzFNUOG4po+PQYxaUZfI LUdrI/5ppD1vm3rW8p7WmCfj56sLJ/3e4GaJK6cg8N7sl9QhR9t3ynUnEKeb/P7NY2 ELCxsM9gKzBFN7TFM87vfsI7crU1QQHwFa81H0b0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406274781; x=1406361181; i=@elandsys.com; bh=dTCY6WYLgtzqknUjLZlaj5Id4FUFWuptXvovYov29RU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=XQwleq93hf7OUueVk0KqfybRGw/MAOxovN6LGV3JXSJE7grxzyq9PxK/7DglqgPke stU9dAT2HVx27UHtdTR46TY5UhwsDTKbsi0nkmPzqHETRTHy6cTU0KWF3KXxU7Am26 xqcQ5AeMaVmWs6FZ0/5QqaGLkZlW879NPPA8abj4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140724231216.0dedca00@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:26:58 -0700
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <53D1C521.3030809@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/uoIs59q-Y3K9J8TLectYEXlDj-0
Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org
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 07:53:08 -0000

Hi Martin,
At 19:46 24-07-2014, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>I think that in general, IETF caring about the 
>technical stuff, and ICANN about the political 
>stuff, should work out fine, even where these overlap (i.e. TLDs).
>
>But imagine the following, somewhat imaginary 
>but not totally improbable scenario:
>
>The IETF is working on some technology that 
>requires a couple of TLDs to be reserved for a 
>special purpose. The technology is already 
>partially deployed, but not yet extremely 
>widely, and the IETF is standardizing it and 
>fixing some stuff that needs fixing for wider deployment.
>
>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).
>
>Now assume that at some point rather late in the 
>game, it gets discovered that some names on both 
>sides clash. ICANN already has accepted a 
>(significant) amount of money and made some firm 
>promises. The IETF technology is already well 
>deployed, and fixes may be costly and 
>time-consuming. Each organization and its 
>constituents thinks that they were first and 
>therefore think they have priority, and provide 
>ample material to support their claims.
>
>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 :-(.

I find it difficult to provide a honest answer to 
the above on a non-IETF mailing list. :-(

Regards,
S. Moonesamy