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

Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Mon, 21 July 2014 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <avri@acm.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 87AAB1A02F4 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 agM3Zzcc9KSQ for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob09.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob09.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663B11A02DE for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.211]) by atl4mhob09.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6LGR6ZH014899 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:27:06 -0400
Received: (qmail 17442 invoked by uid 0); 21 Jul 2014 16:27:06 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.15.42.104
X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (avri@ella.com@68.15.42.104) by 0 with ESMTPA; 21 Jul 2014 16:27:06 -0000
Message-ID: <53CD3F54.6000502@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:27:00 -0400
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internetgovtech@iab.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> <74A399C5-BDA0-4DDB-A52A-BC2F6D98222F@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <74A399C5-BDA0-4DDB-A52A-BC2F6D98222F@istaff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140721-0, 07/21/2014), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/vvpMy0WcHGdUpcfyLn91LnAsrbw
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available
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: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:27:10 -0000

Hi

>  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

On 21-Jul-14 12:08, John Curran wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> I have no problem with the notion of an expectation that mostly
>> parameters will be covered by IETF and names by GNSO and the ccNSO, and
>> numbers by the NRO.  What I have problems with is the construction of
>> silo walls that indicate an expectation that others might not have
>> standing and ability to contribute to the proposed solutions on
>> particular subjects.
> 
> Avri - 
> 
> Since the ICG charter specifically states that everyone's input is to be 
> welcome across all topics, I'm not certain how anyone's contribution could 
> be excluded for a lack of "standing"...  From how I read the process, any
> such input will be considered by the ICG, and potentially provided back to 
> the appropriate operational community for consideration; this is regardless 
> of its origin.  (Of course, that's just my take based on the charter just 
> published, I am not in London/Toronto nor part of the ICG.)
> 
> Do you read it differently?
> /John
> 
> Disclaimer:  My views alone - no IANA accountability mechanisms are proposed
>              by way of this email.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internetgovtech mailing list
> Internetgovtech@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech
> 
>