Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] From yesterday's interim: managing IANA operator change and avoiding confusion
Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com> Wed, 08 October 2014 18:40 UTC
Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C8A1ACE52;
Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.631
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497]
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 vwFXXJl7ql9H; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC7FC1ACD01;
Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 192.102.176.95.rev.sfr.net ([95.176.102.192]:16532
helo=MORFIN-PC.mail.jefsey.com)
by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82)
(envelope-from <jefsey@jefsey.com>)
id 1Xbw9s-00027P-S7; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 11:40:21 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 20:40:03 +0200
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>,Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
From: Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <2F1E6F5D-F072-4573-BB50-E47B3180649C@cooperw.in>
References: <5433AC94.50005@cisco.com>
<FA88094C-B9D3-47F2-892C-8D74CC8A8CB8@cooperw.in>
<543450F6.2080600@cisco.com>
<5007442A-779C-4F88-B58D-8C8293C5BD83@cooperw.in>
<5434BE3C.90000@cisco.com>
<2F1E6F5D-F072-4573-BB50-E47B3180649C@cooperw.in>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id:
jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iucg/zCoy1XY_4NkyD6eo6d8aCKS_VMU
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, "iucg@ietf.org" <iucg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] From yesterday's interim: managing IANA
operator change and avoiding confusion
X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: internet users contributing group <iucg@ietf.org>
List-Id: internet users contributing group <iucg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iucg>,
<mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iucg/>
List-Post: <mailto:iucg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg>,
<mailto:iucg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 18:40:22 -0000
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20141008184026.28807.19607.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>
At 19:57 08/10/2014, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>Agreement to minimize confusion seems fine; a requirement on ICANN
>to declare that we have some authority is a non-starter from my perspective.
Allissa,
dont you think that where there is confusion it should be clarified
rather than minimized? Is it not better to have a tough negociation
today rather than a conflict further on? Do you mean that ICANN could
have some authority on any structural issue? Their role is to govern,
not to normalize.
Architectonics is the political science that deals with how things
are. Governance is the political art to command to free (now
interconnected) men. (Aristotle). The IETF area is the first one, the
ICANN area is the second one. If we are not strict on this, we will
add to confusion at the IETF level, and multiply confusion outside
because others will create their own clearly separated documentation.
I think we miss the USCC position in this debate. What are they ready
to accept from ICANN? or has Admiral Michael S. Rodgers already a
budget for a IANATO?
We are discussing a new phase for a real world.
jfc