From nobody Tue Sep 2 05:18:42 2014 Return-Path: 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 4B2711A02E1 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 05:18:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 Pt8LpWRvA8Pw for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 05:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E5801A02E9 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 05:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by gateway2.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471C02069E for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:18:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=date :subject:from:to:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=BoxdqYMytYABERgf9cIp6qWhdcw=; b=CHNLKov9zNyeAfEyeUbCXU2824AV Fo8fjVvB8wA3D9qAJ8hPFsqS15r7C/cGV39ZD/Qx02LX4bl57heebjfJWIcFjq+G SkfbQLlkAe++V/Y6+5pcbLdzI5CoJeS+DLSi+bDkTpt3f83klzid6euOZCJfBgnY eNr2QAhanOvOT6g= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id :mime-version:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=BoxdqYMytYABERgf9cIp6q Whdcw=; b=ZdLUTJGziPWO4Bg1KUbRpXwYzFS7cN3JiN09Aptx8jRbViJ/g73G6R z693WAzelRVVnLySzJaN2MQW1WIOzoFJLmejXRlcM8gnMudEV/ZU4YL/FGWzhkzD yT1iqnQn+LCvr6jB6frLZrwi4taFLymNjhZGqxqnZyrNu7sAxY/nQ= X-Sasl-enc: dyDI/RbYPoqc02KRoxCiqMNPurh3hg+SW0Ginkf1rwkK 1409660303 Received: from [10.21.65.122] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0C75F680110 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:18:22 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:18:24 +0300 From: Alissa Cooper To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: IANA stewardship transition RFP Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3492515909_18735232" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/lg3eqXKjpXDUdcsJ7YPzEiuLLE8 Subject: [Internetgovtech] IANA stewardship transition RFP X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org 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, 02 Sep 2014 12:18:39 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3492515909_18735232 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable The IANA stewardship coordination group (ICG) has produced a stable draft RFP=20 requesting formal responses from the operational communities of IANA (names, numbers, protocol parameters). If you have feedback about the RFP itself =E2=80=94 particularly if you think something is missing, or if there is any part that is not clear enough to respond to =E2=80=94 please send it to this list by Friday, Sept 5. The ICG is meeting on Sept 6 and aims to finalize the RFP then. Thanks, Alissa --B_3492515909_18735232 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
The IANA stewardship coo= rdination group (ICG) has produced a stable draft RFP <https://www.dropbox.com/s/hkc42p7f2gld7hk/IANA%20Transiti= on%20RFP%20v14-alc-ka-alc-clean.docx?dl=3D0> requesting formal res= ponses from the operational communities of IANA (names, numbers, protocol pa= rameters). If you have feedback about the RFP itself — particularly if= you think something is missing, or if there is any part that is not clear e= nough to respond to — please send it to this list by Friday, Sept 5. T= he ICG is meeting on Sept 6 and aims to finalize the RFP then.
Thanks,
Alissa
--B_3492515909_18735232-- From nobody Wed Sep 10 08:20:26 2014 Return-Path: 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 B27A41A8743 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:20:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 tFmSItG7uT8O for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 982021A872B for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by gateway2.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A673D206B0 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:20:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:20:20 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=date :subject:from:to:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=mesmtp; bh=4t88mzn2IJv249JfbBcpwME Ku/A=; b=HO3S1a6y4RfGsNi7ollPVVQqMtz4CnbXnuYQj9Zyg/D+QHRB44oA8ti vTC70nueBejZ16x26Iw6HX4jAcr7MCtdjsgwlBQbdqUgS6SkKmbvfeqZiZ2lECX+ 3y6JTO98jW4gkzT+XxDp9zGIR0OOPBOsrBr3Xuli7BTlmXHn7RQA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=4t88mzn2IJv249JfbBcpwMEKu/A=; b=glwUsTdlq8jsbqBVVKNraBY8VjLZ vfn9jYnEa1jQpTgJHXZjfA9zuH+f6JmqrtYxG62eGlLn3jYzbs7SUJZvISIdzQp4 bxcg2qbiwuQ4yGuzKNO1G5bUg+qJWB2+ak5dBz/Q5+72MF4vHcHnEn2fLOVF5Ar8 GsBM7JFegVYCaa8= X-Sasl-enc: VvvP9AH7zS8Hd2h2eVeTn3VGvU2yv5BAGxzllgM3jDpK 1410362420 Received: from [10.150.9.168] (unknown [64.102.254.34]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DCA25C008FC for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:20:19 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:20:17 -0400 From: Alissa Cooper To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Issues Request for Transition Proposals and Suggested Transition Process Timeline Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/p9wYX5kz02QSheoyZPnGqeWDnJY Subject: [Internetgovtech] IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Issues Request for Transition Proposals and Suggested Transition Process Timeline X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org 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: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:20:23 -0000 FYI =E2=80=94 ICG has published a finalized RFP request transition proposals from the operational communities. Clarification questions can be submitted until September 24, 2014. Final proposals should be sent to icg-proposal@icann.org by January 15, 2014. The ICG has also published an overall timeline for the transition, which is open for public comment until October 6, 2014. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------------------ > >https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-09-en > >The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is pleased to >announce the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP), for communities >interested in and/or affected by the transition of IANAstewardship from >the United States NTIA to the global multistakeholder Internet community. > >The RFP is available on the ICG website at: > >http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en >.pdf [PDF, 84 KB] > >Should any community submitting a proposal require clarifications to the >RFP, these should be submitted to the ICG on or before Wednesday, 24 >September 2014. Submissions should be sent by email to >stewardship-rfp-questions@icann.org > before this date, and >responses will be provided by the ICG by 20 October 2014. Clarification >questions will be posted to the public ICG mailing list. > >We expect communities to be able to begin work immediately on their >proposals, in light of the aggressive timetable for this work. > >The communities should submit their proposals to the ICG before or on 15 >January 2015. Proposals should be conveyed to the ICG via email to >icg-proposal@icann.org. > >The ICG has also released a suggested timeline for the transition process: > >http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-08sep14-en >.pdf [PDF, 60 KB] > >While this timeline is aggressive, every attempt has been made to be >flexible and allow all communities to participate effectively. The ICG is >therefore providing this timeline for review and comment. Please provide >comments by email to icg-forum@icann.org by 6 October 2014. They will be >publicly archived athttp://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum. From nobody Fri Sep 12 16:37:00 2014 Return-Path: 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 887741A00E4 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:36:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.442 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham 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 m5-A3sGiJ0Wu for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:36:58 -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 4A4281A00E1 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.232.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8CNahM9021096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:36:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1410565016; x=1410651416; bh=8Xz0oinXl+jX77co3CLqK/511N+MKxHO0bXuv/2qVTw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=iBOabfcAIKMxIoc0+IfbANuLwBFn3jDTfURNtd5R4cC+FPrXtq2YHbHB7bdL8b8+7 EJaADU9O4NXYbruxH58Ub5V+3kM2vnjWIkkpe1Io/lGif7idcX4OHYvHT9hEDek5Ka OPyyq+sBndcRqOcPhGy8l9ptlpkHKFqp7re/3+uk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1410565016; x=1410651416; i=@elandsys.com; bh=8Xz0oinXl+jX77co3CLqK/511N+MKxHO0bXuv/2qVTw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=rm2LPoVsb+oucT7QX3lhGM9gHH0Rq81IoUXjzyJ6tOSETXr0Bjgxf0bSjpzYCrpMh JevcPq+uhmollhRzZvwhvx96BAbnhkzCmsp0kCrPsqr0I+RD8M+HA7XN7EI+68RhE5 sySoIIjF1+e3ChJeX8R9d0cpshucrlXyK5/z0WC0= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140912141642.0e58f580@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 16:22:20 -0700 To: David Conrad , internetgovtech@iab.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <5411A084.20304@dcrocker.net> <54120BDB.4010703@gmail.com> <54120BDA.6030703@dcrocker.net> <54123DFF.6050107@dcrocker.net> <89614FD0-5D50-411F-8BDE-B1E8C7F84E01@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140911220559.0cf51f20@resistor.net> <5412D9EE.5050902@meetinghouse.net> <5412EC1D.3080203@cisco.com> <54132E9C.9060701@meetinghouse.net> <20140912182809.GG83481@mx1.yitter.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/2OqBfRZydP4i7ln_pNdpsdMmvkg Subject: [Internetgovtech] IANA Transition (was: what *is* a succession plan?) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org 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: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 23:36:59 -0000 Hi David, {I moved the thread from ianaplan@. The subject line is meaningless.] At 12:19 12-09-2014, David Conrad wrote: >To be honest, a large proportion of this discussion has baffled >me. It's as if people didn't really believe the "bottom up, (rough) >consensus driven" chorus they've been singing for _decades_. Yes. >That authority comes from the consent of the users of the services (aka Here are a thread about the above: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76592.html The term "consent of the governed" has been used since over 20 years. One source for the term is http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html In some ways it emphasizes a difference in cultures. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Fri Sep 12 18:38:57 2014 Return-Path: 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 0EF391A01A8 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 N0W3KMD3TaQZ for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com (mail-pa0-f47.google.com [209.85.220.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5B701A01EF for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id ey11so2413310pad.34 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=jrqEEZKtUGORvhL2fEa4jroPVOleW9HkGb1Vm1g0qYw=; b=g04sy5QlSWhbnOajIhKrH554NS9m8KZhrP5JjlGCL0F/vRgDGHQujBMrFSeetXZOnB Ohkt/SLRrxkJ7IX9Lbp7YGrrJdtwrRGwyxwbTFlWCp2EF2lygBtm856Z6XhPAb2k8Uqn bW7RrxEHeW/z2CFYnoZP0PD5N93GSC58whyCwvQYA3kEVZiG29/EcU5ns+lgdMVbBcO+ EVeVv2jBssuN3pZUD32pvAQ5JX2p+Cv0bonbIcLgGADwTMZsRv0P74LI4xZSxqiWFSMO OEvl5gYbMXSoFZQpULMg7w+vGHudOVCepyKqutHvJUPNXZPe94ujhWMcebc6oTY89Zlc 5rFw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnVlPJDF9PRXGGKnVphC4toBsN+rddfvNJYCTzaS0DpI2UPdALdZG0fN3AGu5+nY7yJ3D8u X-Received: by 10.70.102.200 with SMTP id fq8mr18994531pdb.152.1410572332338; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.11] ([73.162.11.38]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ty8sm5232093pab.26.2014.09.12.18.38.51 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8836E87B-E1CC-41AF-9827-8F0249B71732"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140912141642.0e58f580@resistor.net> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:38:49 -0700 Message-Id: References: <5411A084.20304@dcrocker.net> <54120BDB.4010703@gmail.com> <54120BDA.6030703@dcrocker.net> <54123DFF.6050107@dcrocker.net> <89614FD0-5D50-411F-8BDE-B1E8C7F84E01@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140911220559.0cf51f20@resistor.net> <5412D9EE.5050902@meetinghouse.net> <5412EC1D.3080203@cisco.com> <54132E9C.9060701@meetinghouse.net> <20140912182809.GG83481@mx1.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20140912141642.0e58f580@resistor.net> To: S Moonesamy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/MHFWEHI6w4Xs9PjMJopArXz4fOE Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] IANA Transition (was: what *is* a succession plan?) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org 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: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 01:38:55 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8836E87B-E1CC-41AF-9827-8F0249B71732 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi, On Sep 12, 2014, at 4:22 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > {I moved the thread from ianaplan@. The subject line is meaningless.] OK(?) > At 12:19 12-09-2014, David Conrad wrote: >> To be honest, a large proportion of this discussion has baffled me. = It's as if people didn't really believe the "bottom up, (rough) = consensus driven" chorus they've been singing for _decades_. > Yes. I personally see that as a bit of a problem. >> That authority comes from the consent of the users of the services = (aka > Here are a thread about the above: = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76592.html =20 I scanned that thread and remain unenlightened. > The term "consent of the governed" has been used since over 20 years. =20= Well, yes (1433 is a bit more than 20 years ago). > One source for the term is = http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html In = some ways it emphasizes a difference in cultures. That may be (there are a lot of cultures out there and I=92m in no = position to judge), however the question at hand is whether or not the = NTIA IANA Functions contract =93authorizes=94 the IANA protocol = parameter function, i.e., if NTIA were to change their mind and decide = to contract the IANA protocol parameter function to Most Hated Company, = Inc., whether or not that would have any impact on the IETF. Other than = potentially requiring the IETF community to update a few documents = indicating where folks should look for protocol parameter registries = (i.e., _not_ at a site operated by MHC, Inc.), I personally don=92t = think so. As such, I=92ve been quite surprised at the discussion over = on ianaplan. Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself) --Apple-Mail=_8836E87B-E1CC-41AF-9827-8F0249B71732 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUE6ApAAoJENV6ebf0/4rX204H/2VjT9heR98qi4YagYeEACRQ H2nln7f8vOtIrnw7e5iQ/k5g4al5uL5sUjgxuaPqe15NZd9MmF2YNZJ3KpP/LNxJ sprr1A7kam95QR8WNQAuS66HjRevXpMrIsXzN6ZnvHlDBe0l4CNswcUw7qFUk96r 1rUlnjvtucQe4AWcLb0EkdDrfbOs7LnV2dfYccNJO2xNA2xLiAKjxqhyZiBi9EoO KqUp7tnmNgDYw+uVDls6jp/c+hqKegjOTnbf+YaX1mLPqY8nPi6t0Gf4wa7yH6Yb aWtUZgaZRulaobCtBETia7NtGRUl6OUH2uc/Swjv1VTXK54sKQLIRkQQxuC/eA8= =i4fj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_8836E87B-E1CC-41AF-9827-8F0249B71732-- From nobody Sat Sep 13 06:46:43 2014 Return-Path: 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 CA9681A0797 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:46:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652] autolearn=ham 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 ZZc32so97l0B for ; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:46:39 -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 E7C7A1A06DE for ; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.232.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8DDkNV8027481 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:46:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1410615996; x=1410702396; bh=FgNo8AcuY454URVSdlD20Clh/fWZZILm5OSCbuoLRiM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=VhHfwUow3o8I8ctQd5/rmEcEHNjP01HdszU2XsN86zff2tcx2UM74kun57KHShoMQ s04+GSDR36wYrwjM+K0njUt632jUUzdYDIof4otnR1J4rnOGuo7S7ytXbaHMbQMt// TPE31BMqz/Qc7WdRvz/e/AuZsnnUKa+a6Ce6cnCk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1410615996; x=1410702396; i=@elandsys.com; bh=FgNo8AcuY454URVSdlD20Clh/fWZZILm5OSCbuoLRiM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=tSypWwBAGfiOx2jz+wqtsU741WhX6Katm+QHUIxw/XJvg1c0ZkJAhnq1MxE1jawf2 rwWCbNtOxcz4/7BUH76jzFsyNESHsFMMyd/kqyRmYGWtMox4Sb+WdoOTTdQVsxz0B6 g9gMKhIB2GD3VVNELQRMvDVcDZpupNZQ1dwfvK3c= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140912205951.0c609790@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 23:30:02 -0700 To: David Conrad From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <5411A084.20304@dcrocker.net> <54120BDB.4010703@gmail.com> <54120BDA.6030703@dcrocker.net> <54123DFF.6050107@dcrocker.net> <89614FD0-5D50-411F-8BDE-B1E8C7F84E01@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140911220559.0cf51f20@resistor.net> <5412D9EE.5050902@meetinghouse.net> <5412EC1D.3080203@cisco.com> <54132E9C.9060701@meetinghouse.net> <20140912182809.GG83481@mx1.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20140912141642.0e58f580@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/kvC2Edfp-c1sQG0-4aUn0S6_OGI Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] IANA Transition (was: what *is* a succession plan?) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org 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: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:46:40 -0000 Hi David, At 18:38 12-09-2014, David Conrad wrote: >I personally see that as a bit of a problem. I could say the same. The follow-up question is what have I done about it. My answer is "nothing". >I scanned that thread and remain unenlightened. Technical standards do not work within a vacuum. Adoption is influenced by political, legal, and commercial considerations. This is where governments come into play. >That may be (there are a lot of cultures out there and I'm in no >position to judge), http://crookedtimber.org/2014/03/17/internationalising-the-internets-iana-function/ >however the question at hand is whether or not the NTIA IANA >Functions contract "authorizes" the IANA protocol parameter >function, i.e., if NTIA were to change their mind and decide to >contract the IANA protocol parameter function to Most Hated Company, >Inc., whether or not that would have any impact on the IETF. Other >than potentially requiring the IETF community to update a few >documents indicating where folks should look for protocol parameter >registries (i.e., _not_ at a site operated by MHC, Inc.), I >personally don't think so. As such, I've been quite surprised at >the discussion over on ianaplan. The protocol parameters stuff is the least controversial of the Functions. It is basically about writing a formal response to a government. From http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/2009-06-08-IAB-NTIA-NOI-final.pdf "As the IAB has noted in the past, the IETF determines the policies under which registrations are to be made for the protocol parameters, and in most cases, defines the methods and supplies the expertise for approving those registrations. The implementation of this role is documented in a memorandum of understanding between ICANN and the IETF. The IAB notes that the ICANN-IETF MOU makes reference to the IANA contract. While we understand that it is out of scope for this Notice, that arrangement has generally worked to the mutual satisfaction of the IETF and ICANN. However, the IAB believes that it is critical that these functions of the IETF, and the corresponding functions of IANA, not be disrupted by any transition of ICANN responsibilities, or by other changes to either the DNS Project activities or other ICANN functions." The only change [1] between then and now is that the IAB Chair and the IETF Chair called for the internationalization of IANA [2]. For what it is worth, there can be a regulatory aspect to a protocol parameter registry but it does not have anything to do with the internationalization of IANA. Anyway, the discussions are about legacy stuff mixed with internet governance. Regards, S. Moonesamy 1. I am ignoring the DNSSEC stuff. 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82861.html