IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Sun, 16 November 2014 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B332F1A6F64 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 02:55:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 HyNlQbtepf0f for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 02:55:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.infomaniak.ch (smtp4.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:18cc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEA401A6F63 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 02:55:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-39-132-73.adslplus.ch [178.39.132.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sAGAtEor022704; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:55:14 +0100
From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 11:55:13 +0100
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNMEHJCOAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <C3DEBD77-B551-4635-9824-21EFABF492C2@viagenie.ca>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/gahuO8-P7CFMq3JpgV6Tr7KpLvQ
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:55:21 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Marc
> Blanchet
> Sent: samedi, 15. novembre 2014 18:57
> To: Miles Fidelman
> Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Proposed text reflecting IETF91 discussion
> 
> 
> 
> > Le 2014-11-15 à 10:27, Miles Fidelman 
> <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> a écrit :
> > 
> > Seth Johnson wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Seth Johnson 
> <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Bernard Aboba 
> <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 14, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Andrew Sullivan 
> <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

SNIP

> - thanks for your research
> - most of your points are right, but the question is 
> where/how/when they will be dealt.  This wg is not chartered to 
> do legal work.  It is as we were doing an SOW, not the contract itself. 

Indeed.  And a Statement of Work is exactly what was in "02", namely a call for other organizations to do the legal work to evaluate whether any additional agreements were called for.

It is not disputed that the current IANA functions contract between NTIA and ICANN contains provisions which are not found in the current agreements between IETF and ICANN.

What is disputed is whether those provisions are of any significance or consequence.

I submit that that is a legal matter, which should be analysed by professional lawyers.

Draft "02" called for exactly that.  In contrast, draft "03" prejudges the matter, by implicitly concluding that the provisions in question are of no significance or consequence.

That does not seem appropriate to me, neither from the substantive point of view, nor from the procedural point of view.

As you correctly say above, this group is not chartered to do legal work.  So why is it doing legal work, by concluding that the provisions in question are of no significance or consequence?

> 
> Marc
> 
> 
> 
> > Miles Fidelman
> > 
> > -- 
> > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> > In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ianaplan mailing list
> > Ianaplan@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email