Re: IANA Mail List

[Christopher Evans <teknopup at earthlink.net>]

Wuzzzupp!   


At 03:55 AM 6/13/98 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Kent and all,
>
>  First let me say that these were some of the best comments you have ever
made
>to my knowledge.  Good job.
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 10:06:27PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>> > On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, Jim Fleming wrote:
>> >
>> > > To: comments at iana.org
>> > > Subject: email list
>> > > From: Kent Crispin <kent at songbird.com>
>> > > Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:39:06 -0700
>> > > CC: postel at ISI.EDU
>> > > Sender: kent at songbird.com
>> > >
>> > > It is a matter of some urgency, I believe, that nIANA be seen as a
>> > > publically accessible entity from the very start.  Therefore, it is my
>> > > belief that you should start email lists immediately -- iana-discuss,
>> > > iana-announce, etc.  Already Rick Wesson is advertising "Newdom II".
>> > > That would be a disaster.
>> >
>> > And why would that be?
>>
>> This would actually be "Newdom IV", or maybe "Newdom V".  Every one of
>> the preceeding newdom lists was a contentious nightmare.  Several
>> times attempts were made to form working groups, or to take some other
>> decisive action, and it always came to nothing.  It is my belief that
>> a "Newdom IV" would be the same, and I certainly don't want to repeat
>> that experience.  And I believe that a repetition would be a disaster.
>
>  Interesting thoughts here.  But weather any list is authoritative or not
>shouldn't be a point.  Rather that an exchange of ideas and reasonable
>attitude towards achieving some common ground with DNS issues
>should be viewed positively.
>
>>
>>
>> The reason behind my belief is, fundamentally, that a new newdom list,
>> like the old ones, would have no authority behind it -- it is just
>> another unofficial list.  (You may recall, for example, the
>> controversy concerning the "missing newdom archives" -- as I
>> understand it, Rick threw those away at one point, I'm not sure why.)
>
>  Well yes this is of course true.  But their also some missing IAHC-Discuss
>archives as well.  And it is also interesting to note that the
IAHC-Discuss list
>was
>terminated rather suddenly, shall we say.  In addition the IAHC-Discuss list
>was not authoritative in any way either.  Nor is the gTLD-Discuss have any
>authority behind it of any real consequence either.
>
>> An unofficial list like Rick proposes can be ignored, *and everybody
>> knows it*.
>
>  SO can nearly any mailing list for that matter.  So?  Your point?
>
>>
>>
>> What is really needed is an official list dedicated to IANA/nIANA
>> issues, and it seems obvious to me that the current IANA should host
>> it -- the IANA functions will move to the new IANA (that's the whole
>> point, after all), and this input should go with it.  An official list
>> has some weight, and if a decision comes from that list it cannot be so
>> easily ignored.
>
>   We agree that the IANA(Current version) or the New non-profit corporation
>should host a list to discuss many matters dealing with what the White Paper
>is mandating and how that can be constructed.  If the IANA wishes to
>host it than that would be a good idea.
>
>>
>>
>> > > The intent to create these lists should be publicized immediately
>> > > (tonight would not be too early) on the IETF lists, the MoU lists,
>> > > domain-policy, and several others, with list creation happening in the
>> > > next few days.
>> > >
>> > > It isn't necessary that IANA personel participate heavily in these
lists
>> > > (though an occasional message would be appropriate) -- it is just
>> > > necessary that IANA provide the forum.
>> >
>> > That would be rather unfortunate. It is seemingly the goal of Don Heath
>> > and others to have a reborn IANA that is still centered around Jon
Postel.
>> > But where exactly is John? I can't remember seeing any posts from him at
>> > any time on any of the various lists where these issues are being
>> > discussed. I also went and looked in the IAHC archives and could find no
>> > postings made by Dr. Postel. So, you are suggesting that IANA personnel
>> > needen't bother themselves with any "heavy" participation in these lists?
>>
>> Yep.  It simply isn't necessary.  Note NSI's participation in this
>> list, for example.  Days go by with no comments whatsoever from
>> anyone from NSI.  Imagine the difference if Chuck Gomes interjected
>> his opinion on every topic that came up.  He answers when a direct
>> question comes up, or where there is a clear policy issue that must
>> be addressed, but for the most part he stays quiet.
>
>  This may be your opinion and you are of course entitled to it.  But many
>may not share it.
>
>>
>>
>> > I think this is *exactly* what is needed and should be expected of any
>> > individual or organization that wants to have a leadership role in the
>> > creation and running of the new organization.
>>
>> I think you have it exactly backward.  I want IANA to listen far more
>> than it speaks, and I certainly don't want it taking sides in the
>> debates unless it is absolutely necessary.
>
>  In speaking on a mailing list, the IANA or any other organization doesn't
>have to do that in a side taking  manner.
>
>>  But by all means, make
>> your concerns known to IANA.  They will now be a matter of public record.
>
>  Agreed.  PAB and POC should have don this with their mailing lists.  But
>when dealing with a closed process that makes doing something of that nature
>a bit difficult.
>
>>
>>
>> > > It also isn't necessary that the form of the lists be perfect from the
>> > > start -- they can change, list policies can be changed, etc.  It is
just
>> > > necessary to put something in place soon.
>> > >
>> > > IANA in the past has had the luxury of working in peace and quiet, away
>> > > from the public cacophony.  But those days are past, unfortunately.
>> >
>> > Unfortunate for some, welcome by others. Democracies are funny that way -
>> > they tend to be noisy.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> In any case, I am very pleased that IANA has started this public
>> comment page.  I note, however, that it isn't really a mailing list,
>> and I hope that they do start a list...perhaps if there were more
>> comments to that effect?
>
>  The public comment page, is practically worthless.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                 "No reason to get excited",
>> kent at songbird.com                       the thief he kindly spoke...
>> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
>> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
>>
>>
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
>
>
>
>