From nobody Fri Aug 8 14:25:44 2014 Return-Path: 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 08CD61A0450 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:25:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, 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 hQEJQB0zRO6a for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:25:39 -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 EFE281A026C for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03123228D4 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 17:25:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 08 Aug 2014 17:25:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=date :subject:from:to:message-id:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=0hKuVv/edwHtF6xW8ZP9zuXypH4=; b=AHIk z2HPxOX3KI7YfpDr9XfuU060rEFnEXxknfN3wLS1R13aWwb/CVLUm3xEMBnFYird WJdvFiLZR6Bp7ZL4femqFNx2TTOsqosa+vMRVtheriFUEVVUTFSzto02fyjjJG4X gUJhzxn+aD8kq6Qru6ykRDXO4aCAK2arQVNFCUM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=0hKuVv/edwHtF6xW8ZP9zuXypH4=; b=X4sjrbaLEz9qhqRB7Suda8teAsIX FLjM8DhcNFnwhWhq+1NAzvQM14vKJ7FhYn3qqobcngtONo24jgBs/cciULFs+uMp aN/8lwTXN+HyUfrpfSrWXdoyaeJowZktEeLexxUV+pVizxhUd/F0+6IxUDzPwxrP MZs+3WbDoU/KCU8= X-Sasl-enc: /olM56IS7G7wCWR131xk/7e4L/bVuGWMudASJzNoomZP 1407533136 Received: from [171.68.18.50] (unknown [171.68.18.50]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B0CA9C007B0; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 17:25:35 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:25:30 -0700 From: Alissa Cooper To: , Internetgovtech Message-ID: Thread-Topic: 2nd Conference Call of ICG on 19 August from 12:00-14:00 UTC References: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3490352736_71401939" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/PjVJPPRcK3H-oWLwWTBrpLKSEUQ Subject: [Ianaplan] FW: 2nd Conference Call of ICG on 19 August from 12:00-14:00 UTC X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 21:25:42 -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_3490352736_71401939 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable FYI On 8/8/14, 1:09 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" wrote: > In sending the announcement to this list, the link to the virtual meeting= room > was lost. The link is: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. I've correcte= d it > in the text below as well. >=20 > From: Grace Abuhamad > Date: Friday, August 8, 2014 2:27 PM > To: > Subject: 2nd Conference Call of ICG on 19 August from 12:00-14:00 UTC >=20 > The second conference call of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordinatio= n > Group (ICG) will take place on: >=20 >=20 > ** Tuesday, 19 August 2014** > 12:00-14:00 UTC > See timezone a conversion here > of+ICG&iso=3D20140819T12&ah=3D2> > =20 > Remote Participation & Interpreting >=20 >=20 > The community is welcome to attend by way of a listen-only mode Virtual > Meeting Room through which audio o= f the > call will be streamed. In addition, translations into the 5 UN languages = plus > Portuguese will be available through relevant Adigo Bridge dial-in number= s and > Conference ID codes. >=20 >=20 > A list of country dial-in numbers can be found here > . In the case that there is no appropriate dial-in number for an interest= ed > participant, ICANN will provide a dial-out service to that individual. > Correspondingly, language service Conference ID numbers are listed below: > * Fran=C3=A7ais =E2=80=93 Conference ID: 75929475 > * Espa=C3=B1ol =E2=80=93 Conference ID: 68385764 > * =E4=B8=AD=E6=96=87 =E2=80=93 Conference ID: 825702 > * P=D1=83=D1=81=D1=81=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =E2=80=93 Conference ID: 345720 > * =D8=A7=D9=84=D8=B9=D8=B1=D8=A8=D9=8A=D8=A9 =E2=80=93 Conference ID: 82855066 > * Portugu=C3=AAs =E2=80=93 Conference ID: 759752 > The full announcement can be found here: > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-08-07-en >=20 > _______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing li= st > ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransi= tion --B_3490352736_71401939 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
FYI

On 8/8/14, 1:09 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" &l= t;grace.abuhamad@icann.org>= wrote:

In sending the announcement to this lis= t, the link to the virtual meeting room was lost. The link is: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg/. I've corrected it in the text below as well. 

From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
Date: Friday, August 8, 2014 2:27 PM
To: <ianatransition@icann.org>
Subject:= 2nd Conference Call of ICG on 19 August from 12:00-14:00 UTC

The second confer= ence call of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) will t= ake place on:


**&n= bsp;Tuesday, 19 August 2014**

12:00-14:00 UT= C

= See timezone a conversion here

 

Remote Participation & Interpreting<= /b>


<= /p>

The community is welcome to attend by way of a listen-only mode Virtual Meeting Room through which a= udio of the call will be streamed. In addition, translations into the 5 UN l= anguages plus Portuguese will be available through relevant Adigo Bridge dia= l-in numbers and Conference ID codes.


A list of count= ry dial-in numbers can be found here<= /a>. In the case that there is no appropriate dial-in number for an interest= ed participant, ICANN will provide a dial-out service to that individual. Co= rrespondingly, language service Conference ID numbers are listed below:


_______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.i= cann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
--B_3490352736_71401939-- From nobody Fri Aug 8 14:31:49 2014 Return-Path: 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 3858E1A03EE for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:31:49 -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 3onipTi4-LrM for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:31:47 -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 61F0A1A0376 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by gateway1.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEAE02265D for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 17:31:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 08 Aug 2014 17:31:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=date :subject:from:to:message-id:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=ANBuiOmDmvcPxAzL6VmHy9iiLgY=; b=VQ99 cfePt95xFQedbrR1KdEGG9pt/SIls22srxfnBsqUISDvfvw85Ce9Dr3rWbXXpeqk t0j7NnQ2B4b3qaRzcNn5oHlaFqODW46EAjkToG1IDfljEDqm7KP/KDkQpsvBVrMp pWSia5oi9QKdaGWcy0/gs/wt6fiEseLP/sN2wKM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=ANBuiOmDmvcPxAzL6VmHy9iiLgY=; b=WQVNuwfSM0QTR7102yI2mBhMnOt8 KirgQq9LG6Kuk4vUcIMhv/P2vawiFt/lQjojjwiUhq6F1q2qrcWerIt9xOVv5KtB jz/G0EiDdPtC8t0JwazG9KIZ7uo0K01ckegy6bHG2MjonsHL22sTgh7zxVTD/WWk qiDuCzfHDnepYwQ= X-Sasl-enc: 0vfRDznAufOfeuMDxW7wfxcvsRRjP+mijrh/9Tqed4fq 1407533506 Received: from [171.68.18.50] (unknown [171.68.18.50]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9E20A68017D; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 17:31:44 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:31:40 -0700 From: Alissa Cooper To: , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: ICG Charter Open for Public Comment References: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3490353105_71398241" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/GHgADtltH12fuQ7TdjQ6R93kUmQ Subject: [Ianaplan] FW: ICG Charter Open for Public Comment X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 21:31:49 -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_3490353105_71398241 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable FYI. There has been some discussion of the ICG charter on internetgovtech@iab.org, and I think it=E2=80=99s the preference of Jari and myse= lf for further IETF/IAB discussion of the charter to happen there so we can coalesce and reflect the results of that discussion back to the ICG. But if people would rather submit comments individually and directly to the ICG, information about how to do so is below. Alissa On 8/8/14, 2:12 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" wrote: > The ICG has opened a public comment period for their charter that will en= d on > 15 August 2014 at 23:59 UTC. >=20 > Public comment submission process links: >=20 > Comment submission: icg-forum@icann.org > List of comments submitted via this site: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum > Charter:=20 > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-charter-coordination-gr= oup-1 > 7jun14-en.pdf [PDF, 43.7 KB] > Deadline: August 15, 2014 at 23:59 UTC >=20 > Please view the full announcement here: > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-08-en > _______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing li= st > ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransi= tion --B_3490353105_71398241 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
FYI.

There has been some discussion of the ICG charter on internetgovtech@i= ab.org, and I think it’s the preference of Jari and myself for further= IETF/IAB discussion of the charter to happen there so we can coalesce and r= eflect the results of that discussion back to the ICG. But if people would r= ather submit comments individually and directly to the ICG, information abou= t how to do so is below.

Alissa
= _______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.i= cann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition --B_3490353105_71398241-- From nobody Fri Aug 8 14:40:08 2014 Return-Path: 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 0D2E91A0AE4 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:40:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.697 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.697 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, WEIRD_PORT=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 ArqUC7_UH07n for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:40:03 -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 B20A11A0348 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:40:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by gateway1.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8617522B9B for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 17:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 08 Aug 2014 17:39:59 -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=UiUBwi7hzaEU4gT52RbIB6pw33E=; b=FAg+GE39CFM5MRirzOdzqX3DrqFK Iy5jWiMcewi9qAdmuH5EcEivsy/Bsm8gKZLEI9oMoOfl5LeJfYLWwTiq+usRA7oP +51y+K/CIe7NRT2qBcfXSkM8lRd65YyRkIE4FiY9RjjsksXc74PcgS4H7WIPclP6 1TNkk2EWR/ouhcQ= 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=UiUBwi7hzaEU4gT52RbIB6 pw33E=; b=aHJqK4uakc/2wlsJJbpJ4+dgaKdDIvyx91FUfAxFkUSPWw8wZb6ENO pZb3rMo74pSg3lxvzYzBuNFqWgaWIeFLo3gQsnPzJnyUfsVa4umPBM7aqmD94cXT 704d/e/KThaIprZlD32kPRQsIzr+3Pz6aLh1HlElIpxG5fvxDwNjo= X-Sasl-enc: hSk/Owj4rWahKxe55mtbv9euEsJSXkzqtW6dhxdvPvaR 1407533998 Received: from [171.68.18.50] (unknown [171.68.18.50]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 87CDD680256 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 17:39:58 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:39:54 -0700 From: Alissa Cooper To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Second ICG F2F: Sept 6 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3490353598_71441013" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/2BFti97RmdRfGm8sz8mY_FflAXg Subject: [Ianaplan] Second ICG F2F: Sept 6 X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 21:40:06 -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_3490353598_71441013 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable FYI On 7/31/14, 11:17 AM, "Alice Jansen" wrote: > See https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-16-en >=20 > UPDATE: Second face-to-face meeting of ICG will take place on 6 September= 2014 > in Istanbul, Turkey. Remote participation information is listed below. > On 14 March 2014, the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information > Administration (NTIA) announced > ey-internet-domain-name-functions> its intention to transition its > stewardship over key Internet domain name functions to the global > multistakeholder community, and called upon ICANN to launch and facilitat= e a > process with the community to develop a proposal, meeting the criteria se= t out > by the NTIA. > Following the announcement, ICANN published a Process to Develop the Prop= osal > and Next Steps=20 > = on 6 > June, that is the culmination of a series of community discussions and in= put > into the process to develop a proposal to transition stewardship of the I= ANA > functions to the global multistakeholder community. The document reflects= the > multitude of views expressed in different fora and calls for the establis= hment > of, among other things, a Coordination Group. > The communities represented in the Coordination Group launched internal > processes to select their representatives, and submit those representativ= es to > ICANN by 2 July. A list of representatives in the Coordination Group and > publications of community announcements of nomination processes can be fo= und > here > . > The newly formed IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is > comprised of 30 individuals representing 13 communities, and includes dir= ect > and indirect stakeholders. The ICG had their first face-to-face meeting o= n > 17-18 July in London, United Kingdom. You can find the ICG's draft charte= r, > first meeting statement and other resources here > -en> . > The next face-to-face meeting of the ICG will take place on 6 September 2= 014 > following the Ninth Annual IGF Meeting in Istanbul, Turkey. > Similar to the London Meeting, the community will be able to follow the I= CG's > second meeting through a Virtual Meeting Room > and through audio translations int= o > these languages: > * English > * Fran=C3=A7ais > * Espa=C3=B1ol > * =E4=B8=AD=E6=96=87 > * P=D1=83=D1=81=D1=81=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 > * =D8=A7=D9=84=D8=B9=D8=B1=D8=A8=D9=8A=D8=A9 > * Portugu=C3=AAs > In addition, there will be a real time text > provided outside o= f the > Virtual Meeting room available to the community. > More information about the meeting will be provided as it is confirmed by= the > ICG. > For information about the ICG and the IANA Functions' Stewardship Transit= ion, > please visit the NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition microsite > . > _______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing li= st > ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransi= tion --B_3490353598_71441013 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
FYI

On 7/31/14, 11:17 AM, "Alice Jansen" &l= t;alice.jansen@icann.org> wro= te:


UPDATE: Second face-to-face m= eeting of ICG will take place on 6 September 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey. Remote participation i= nformation is listed below.

On 14 March 2014, the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Admi= nistration (NTIAannounced its intention to transition its stewardship over key Internet domain name func= tions to the global multistakeholder community, and called upon ICANN to launch and facilitate a process with the community to develop a proposal, = meeting the criteria set out by the NTIA.

ICANN published= a Process to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps on 6 June, that is the cul= mination of a series of community discussions and input into the process to = develop a proposal to transition stewardship of the IANA fun= ctions to the global multistakeholder community. The document reflects the multit= ude of views expressed in different fora and calls for the establishment of,= among other things, a Coordination Group.

The communities represented in the Coordination Group launched internal pro= cesses to select their representatives, and submit those representatives to&= nbsp;ICANN by 2 July. A list of representatives in the Coordination Group and publicatio= ns of community announcements of nomination processes can be found here.

The newly formed IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is comprised of 30 individuals representing 13 communities, and includes d= irect and indirect stakeholders. The ICG had their first face-to-face meeting on 17-18 July in London, United Kingdom. = You can find the ICG's draft charter, first meeting statement and other resources here.

The next face-to-face meeting of the ICG will take place on 6 September 2014 following the Ninth Annual = IGF Meeting in Istanbul, Turkey.

Similar to the London Meeting, the community will be able to follow the&nbs= p;ICG's second meeting through a Virtual Meeting Room and through audio translations into these languages:=

In addition, there will be a real time text provided outside of the Virtual Meeting room available = to the community.

More information about the meeting will be provided as it is confirmed by t= he ICG.

For information about the ICG and the IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition, please visit the NTIA IANA=  Functions' Stewardship Transition microsite.

_______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.i= cann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
--B_3490353598_71441013-- From nobody Fri Aug 8 23:33:11 2014 Return-Path: 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 75D4E1A0AF3; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 23:33:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 qV6DfyLiVsX8; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 23:33:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 B7BD41A0AF5; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 23:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-39-148-41.adslplus.ch [178.39.148.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s796WsL6009566; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 08:32:55 +0200 From: "Richard Hill" To: "Alissa Cooper" , , Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 08:32:47 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01CFB3AC.7FCC3570" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/8Pr8ScjbsIXxppNp89eCHCitAts Cc: "Rhill@Alum. Mit. Edu" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] FW: ICG Charter Open for Public Comment X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 06:33:09 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01CFB3AC.7FCC3570 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_001E_01CFB3AC.7FCC3570" ------=_NextPart_001_001E_01CFB3AC.7FCC3570 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Alissa, Thank you for this. Please find attached my comments on the draft ICG charter. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alissa = Cooper Sent: vendredi, 8. ao=C3=BBt 2014 23:32 To: ianaplan@ietf.org; internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: [Ianaplan] FW: ICG Charter Open for Public Comment FYI. There has been some discussion of the ICG charter on = internetgovtech@iab.org, and I think it=E2=80=99s the preference of Jari = and myself for further IETF/IAB discussion of the charter to happen = there so we can coalesce and reflect the results of that discussion back = to the ICG. But if people would rather submit comments individually and = directly to the ICG, information about how to do so is below. Alissa On 8/8/14, 2:12 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" wrote: The ICG has opened a public comment period for their charter that = will end on 15 August 2014 at 23:59 UTC. Public comment submission process links: Comment submission: icg-forum@icann.org List of comments submitted via this site: = http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum Charter: = https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-charter-coordination-gr= oup-17jun14-en.pdf [PDF, 43.7 KB] Deadline: August 15, 2014 at 23:59 UTC Please view the full announcement here: = https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-08-en _______________________________________________ ianatransition = mailing list ianatransition@icann.org = https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition ------=_NextPart_001_001E_01CFB3AC.7FCC3570 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
Dear=20 Alissa,
 
Thank you for=20 this.
 
Please find = attached my=20 comments on the draft ICG charter.

Best,
Richard
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ianaplan=20 [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alissa=20 Cooper
Sent: vendredi, 8. ao=C3=BBt 2014 23:32
To: = ianaplan@ietf.org; internetgovtech@iab.org
Subject: = [Ianaplan] FW:=20 ICG Charter Open for Public Comment

FYI.

There has been some discussion of the ICG charter=20 on internetgovtech@iab.org, and I think it=E2=80=99s the = preference of Jari and=20 myself for further IETF/IAB discussion of the charter to happen there = so we=20 can coalesce and reflect the results of that discussion back to the = ICG. But=20 if people would rather submit comments individually and directly to = the ICG,=20 information about how to do so is below.

Alissa

On 8/8/14, 2:12 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>= =20 wrote:

The ICG has = opened a=20 public comment period for their charter that will end on 15 = August=20 2014 at 23:59 UTC.

Public = comment=20 submission process links:

Comment=20 submission: icg-forum@icann.org
List of = comments=20 submitted via this site: http://forum.icann.org/li= sts/icg-forum
Charter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/d= raft-charter-coordination-group-17jun14-en.pdf [PDF,=20 43.7 KB]
Deadline: = August 15,=20 2014 at 23:59 UTC

Please view = the full=20 announcement here: https://ww= w.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-08-en
__= _____________________________________________=20 ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.= icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition=20
------=_NextPart_001_001E_01CFB3AC.7FCC3570-- ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01CFB3AC.7FCC3570 Content-Type: application/pdf; name="IANA ICG charter r1.pdf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="IANA ICG charter r1.pdf" JVBERi0xLjQKJcfsj6IKNSAwIG9iago8PC9MZW5ndGggNiAwIFIvRmlsdGVyIC9GbGF0ZURlY29k ZT4+CnN0cmVhbQp4nO1dW3PdthF+1684jzqdiMaNAJk+pUnHTafNNI7al6QPsi6ObVlSFNlu+zOa /OAC4GUXxC7Iw3Nku53GkxGGB8RlsZdvFwvwp42opNqI8G8onL85Epun/v8XRz8dNZUO/8UfcPn8 zeZ3p0dPnrmNf+v06khUbdsaGX+Tm1ZWzcZZ36TdnL45+v742VZWtauFPr7c6sqZ43fbE1Gp1rS+ vAllaZxr1bFknt92z+u6qY+vtieuUkKoNqnyZezDmLTym61UVS3rFpX6MdxsT4yfkpTu+GGrqkbU Vh7/vD2RlVJt69j+0Xu4CrTxY6zg26iHrogpxqYcKuM6f0TP30J319sT5WlqtD3+Z/6mrZ08Vui5 QGXcq2He/apbJWuO77thn+VUl7XsZ2p0m7x93r3TT75xOnm9bxFe7Slzv/376R+PlNOVjexzeuHZ BTeL+r3N28M1oe0fgWSXeb2v4xJrqY6/GCf8zViCZ/id76a8gqbwfnvSVEYL5agZX8CbP48d9wPU nllewpreAek2W1WLQJkTaXVVa7s5kdoLVSTP6fZEV9r3YqmFupl2GJm578bXQIyKHpYZPNLgy5Ey uDKxKGjKaHaoVTxcICequ2A0T7euqk3djjS4pWXmjn79h+Ox37+N86pQBYua+2G79YsVluPJs6bX eNIruVrqjmV906ev/FoZUxlTx7WqbbdYz2Cx0ARBWMZOzgaBGMZ1wYjpH8bxogavyeJn6DXcBDD5 X4A8X2+V71paFWir1DDdphIGqfim1/HaqEqZjdPeLKig5b2K8TQAAqUmQRsb6jmtAhe/GSjm2sop h5lbLVBUXj3KIEm++BZVSdSjCi0ruVo5yiYwTCeCbV21dRDBFkRQeIXlbZAd1jCaLELdX6Cfb1G5 54C36NGbMH7P0mA3bhJBGYW1YJlIc/J+NI2Y4ZD0E+yYvx/YhZjgeS5+aCKL5hRWDK8T4mvQmbjC WYIisPjQItH/+JxmFsJGdC8oY/AQP++KztU9Z3T88Kej0998n5Bk1N6/Pz369qgTgGdP+8L9ElxF C5Gzvj/rZcZ0sAqz3gNW8GPxDtVA1uBzqPGELL4fARvwDpQqNNeci87ydcblimHe+9Esvdh62ZVC KzwignueTNkkzg1EHz18yBpCjIl6uaJsY88qtpHDy8CVaAxXlCXL2Yx89yIjRGinpyQ0PExDH5+M z847BGVkZawaEFTRsDxkY+ppL5uk3Uyu8+Wa2qnU3k+HgDrmjf2ofWEowBDQ68Tcj+U7sgUOdL+C Ybxl+JUzDicTHBiURf+eliAkUZ3coecXqHw14IqoKLxB2XglW1fWbbRt1abe3F8eXe3gjtFqow56 ymDFgVVdp8rAlTsxpq208ChGiWj6Az/9ZSuDwfPOU4+2esa5BilBAgOuFnrY4zgvXAP+i1qpb4/w Z6KGSLuDhgmk/TpD2kLV4/QAt0Vo1intshnvpYIyemhejMdIaEHObCMiEpgvVkednA0EG9RcSuPx dRCalJ6Dgutn1VWTtUn1RKhBCPayTpC2xYqIoOMrUK1Y/hiVcp7Z+LOEDac4AlTt1CiEZ4kajDpU u0o3gwrtDYQ39p/Trf/S9Q2weS2aQRWQVbpDNKAV70NGhwXY6oZplqnOwctZrI3aI4wR0xujjsk1 y/ki8pf2fJW0+RzpW9DU4GD3q45cEA6y3+Qq4rME9UH5OaqKIT4D4hmBSYk1fekVPM6JNUU9OUwj pBHjY+Jn1HL3q1SKwmXMzG6ZKjO9XjAMe5O/9mv3B1veDVP+3dZW1iuummFfQqDOeiXRVC2EqpAc 3CJGA70IzXPOOGLk/woNskqymZcI1wvVzJDwTcbngRI0AWcQJnBhLb2WT1bvigxw5lMo6JSOSZBS GcxEMwRfvG/1zViCZ4zA5Q4MuGNFw43aYJz/u4wiXe8zlmJBIMKTSmN0k4lafDHaUd0KiVs+GzFd STfgoV9nL5OKrsSN894FyDURK+EUB2dP7zqFUjeVcqPnxutT7EkUhpvOGqSE1hzvqWAiQ5518oxH XHJFizgPO1A7O5PMGjQhYk+LOoR/6LgqkvR+9ZCk01KbMjTGENjzwHAjdwsI54Tfsurr/cP/Krw/ J2tCh2AKrUb7uf0OuABknVsSztdZ7j30OtU//RKi7NSmzjfkps7iyCURGoicSIsMzPzXrTFmLo6u O+dc6Krt4uiqHEeP9eq2GXx5DlbgZcETWIExXN1q9PQy0TCclD3QQslUmdX3mS7Jw7uH1fcIxymX mnwk/k5XqpGM+GPkf54LOx8u4Pa/43Mc051B37m1CApjzlrEsTNaBVBHsqM4ldho+dcJNWsvwtCL Hs1LCCYQjextL+Lzkr1gjcXgN4xeQ+bQSmABQgQwxYjA0TSAfDm1srTpZw0ECgzPGIhpnDczEJkm upxGr3awDjsCDwjMZNZBy7a3CWkpRfCJWKfGAu3X2RDRREUs9FicaXkBQgz7IkHX5ttL4D5wKgKr hVRuylKDx5tjaBA9LtRBz4upsdg7nQg7752izjB/lAIOxO7hbc7bCHdxLeDh0GGEu5xF76c7LP3z u3xuRV3VKRVb1YZKm2Gc1f9aJ/1xvB/EjmgktJPH0IyMXoEWieuD1MhE6YopF9AWGLEkzpzLN2Fo D5uB87DZiVp4m8/nhqUvJx/Pc8HQi/DAbcY7KNy4IDYyb0PD1t3hbOiqWFgfSDShzii895PtRMpT eUuyf/YmE8ObDdkjacjXYRJ9Z1wH3DWnX9E43uUU5+w+08lCg0+5g8Hg86HiUYT7ZUIyDME6bIux j77aPjKo+0NZ0KUhe96CRuB/IAuauQNZ6GM/C7oTwCyL9DiQIRdDKZVLdg72F3B1GjFcO0NafdG7 AjPRO4ZAdA9XpJWm+/rU4EcMENJhwanOnYT/ewZAOqO3tYn/MMkvOM+sOa6cW0NO4dCqgLGdnPEl 8ipL4rzjXsGwPRqUxcyWH60cCYNIIyfCquSO1jIHi4hyIF+LmSkaCnbQ0KwGLqDtBOd1QRyGoF8e sAgcAKVMjzIjJiKjITm9jMbo7RIo5UA3j0tzIIBPm6ajEJkbsChA2XlWvo1mDNgU9/6SVnfL5GPs yKr0vfBbx9u1EGPcCSV2DXPCiV3fQVbWWyi+QKyKy9TaJTrsAtog9iLygwF1ch5hadoWPiVUMQLy 59BWrQIExGr0ghbCQT0PGGR6tGdp8JLMHyW3aub1RTkHnPXNUFLGvE5YN8uPy+OEK6VjplYeXS0i kSjBdMgWEwt2SKHdLBP8RLa2MnrlGQHYx/piVOvfjCV49unkBjxQ3H028l+OwXAYIwTo1+Pzj5qX PB3MwszkyGopLbutf+eZZnQU0Jkk0pV9OnLiD1tSGgiRmsf9RB5Ven6h23p89rQv7HF+wWjjJcL/ EcPmJWG9Odu/OhOxPNkOuZOoAOA+UPE1WtAkLxRTTFsP/nXtRMjkDuebxkTuF0cmHBDTXlzCb3bj Zaj7bW/iShFOhxhpq/7Qbe7H95AWD7VpxUabOuacez4+VMq59GpQWjwaIrhGJ48TMaH7JE3+cPwo a2838CD5c0JIuX6+Va6B0SgXKNiqSMHWHIyCzq9Jsp5E+GS3vV4uXpQnl1/T4GRBZGi5D/9X8tgl OmjLxeaQRlx86IzbdMHtfjU95bY0c2nVGTeIRi4xQlHfEMmoVlfC1UQyairlndIxxvZKR/ZMuqeu Ef1hzgTr5MKdxjdWpdtMcUl61Ize3yyHwpYc2OBMEeC1vrafOj47RuMRNMO9cQdEtS9ocjKAh8zy KUXT1g/Ro5mBRa2zA4sC2yOWAbTzxRzEyTY7AIEVD1DvlLBw0EBkFN3dA5FY4qdJRz1JUXgRG/jB l8XMDd5ETvbE7fj3XFrhx/U7ci/WNisSjSbbRcvvgQAnklNS52vkZscA1UJO7aDtI+AmbUXIWdRN 22l/kCLGh8aAqnxkizED13NSQ2qzw2dUYRyqhXAbrVTEzq2xmz2NqnEe+VigKvAnAydglUH3YI0B vz8kkNVjJ+0HbiNk1aI53DlTGe546CdwHG94QPBDycPCD+0RsupIxSZnrYAWSXJWLR7DD5be+/Pe EZrAb2cBdyEkFzYyCgGZmWjMZM4LABTud1+vI0jsKo0wm5VABEMI15JL5aHDOWeLtif2RrhZQnkX LPJej2mpZC+gBXUSvrQIpD8zMKNOOkFjW3o+KtWd1I4pMBKTf54EorTxekvKGFZRja3zuIoUcqJj DhRX0V5k+5gVe9DoNSEjy0LvBOMwQks4mMzeG4PfmAPgGYCePwAed2+LB8BDoHeH00FwC8W++oM7 E1Fm0R0zQsbZdDkfXraVHqRzJn7775m0MvIqESJwzajMzEnaSfxxS+TxMC7NndQVBDZGL3GH/oms ijFcGS7Wi8hFaZVpANU2U5RxKA1g3CSWOd1ELGYgMNt4O520ekfLY+Z8LYtwhEzImfQspOpyZw/0 BL+lgqbI5Pvtlt67Rhn8vPWINOWgpok2RNrGHgr8atGGGzQRlxDxS5RzAsBYNW5qtFZfECUCoyo3 hOWYTXCa/3Bm8ZLAWn/CAUPkOhDXySieYWr74nxlPEBG80H3VmFuzXdaKZiMDO26BJJMoHaCmFNA D+LKxdIxs9Opv/PikGXAMJeZoL1HfOERE4VbEJnIbBCBcYDODAj+1/bEVsrWZFL0Q294XeUV9Ia/ +OphHhdcsovHYYIDo2EizbBcBxY09zasYvIStRBVrR131wltys4SmOj11yRtsf+DTkCVLR5qmktu +zC7W0gEHikrEvibkJJWSDObHvt+uktER7f3OAPM30rSSVcdblkdpCuNR88y+6Kc6SxRIb1aZ0cM z6Xike4lZm3RKJeLXMLcC3b4aDifXPy7lLFQDDKj9+ydRv2yLbjUiL2HlBDlKXggsjWZQNayzbVY tbdEQbzxfa29JSokrc0cVkBkRYqONkHrNr1nwnRk3tSHOTc3f8sHcW4hb6ARpfup+B3uma0+wvbl uyhv835pP3TxfU5czvrMzg7B9JyqArIT21xhrLFJ7WtMrhcgcQYRFqNOGvTX0tHR3fnzRWVRZ35d Ly8fLFgd+iU2gmhuyTb4pyCm6AJfZs4TlzzLRIqXHw4iPO/cVsEFBE6MGe3FnczIhp/QTiaTc/m/ vNsYtQJOesY3E4R1/JB3E/yaW7IdLDpjHssHZ5bb1OFcTQhHP1Li2y+Jj6MmQvMJbEVlduN8vFvM 1WNUurgxZX0rO29MUcrzwLtRSy5RMl5dO7tRrgkxuLD5rEuXKBllQ/6CcoqO1XXOcm0rVeOE/tVH xOYP+BISXDbE9LVe6+/oKO6ylg6s8Ld3ImaYNpBtQi0+vLezXpnK4nI7k93vy6ZhRFFTjWeX0VPO MjIIZCDbqcw+0vYxrcZL+JJGGMTJzvXkzdxwCrhkAJ4e5C/ZkpOdjya0XytkQiG8xZy/xTf6lo0F Y2/pvRRaNeTn9ndHFfUkMFU89DnRP8GUHiaBZsJ6M1fz7nT5EXEpInEymlOJjKou++wZDRFlCLxw SDdiGq08ZDb1Asy3TFnQqGhP1z1tdIj5h4S79MrUBTeGLd6suJo+mL2xYH+/5tHVP+5s/k474uIN AlPHOxKyj5xMo5HdciF1C9+X4W4/JXyN1CGdaM819yLtfdVgrQsXZCABL8dalgKbmZO4OZSajXNy gavFsYj8nC4RkSCDaMTuwg67c4wXzexxLIhbcH3vcCpkPnsBPinBIKmDX0y5XPssyzaeRCW4bOPx pZSshe0JfDkGc+0JzdgYl6HHhOzPhTwxfzIXoq2+I5mpXD7P30+4cTWh6DiNwHhvGdJAv3FXKOAy 3Ju58kQxVM2+JpeDgeQDV/fjhRw1fHchy2sgzFUewJxBCrkHgp4Qji4NClZL5Sy8+qAIAV+5jo+x L3b8Cl9H6JYSiT/ymXIjygJmLh+og99CGcZzOEwgf6dzqGtR+D4qK7pxLEJgvqk4n9zJcG8x/2gn YNlFLlUl1JjtXv5aI73PxiFy/hYvdpil07+Pb5B/s8D8w9CyfO7Z3KolRz2d1Ym1Jzcj+zVDck1c a85dW1Z2yIkLs/DLw5nHHPnn4ZxIiPfkpSqljUnC7tLdcKY22PElwWzZtpUxG2m9luyC2aYUzFZC h3p+tZJQNmvNIcTi10lVrm02J0omW/5FJPD/8n7ljv6fznj2L+ME/ZABLJXsbsNQQuybAqyk8bpE Gg1HCkNVW5kGKiuL85+lruNdYfiT1G3V2rG+bsb6Joig1HJyYHHdJ3u5TmwYTt9JyFCtvWkXKpzZ E74kRdvi4l3Qy1rXOnymd3z6hCy+DzYi3EKVF6qATqS10YX3ukl49G5w4y+hmRfjkPq3nA3oeXzr xyTJ22pPY+GamLOu643ZPYGeoVS4j8UhUm1gDnAfXHHpVVzQ5Csq5aWXbWwO9eZs+CKA19haW48g fx+eNrpu5PGpf1pXTSvjh0ibyrQ2bAQPtLsZSxckldEyXMNTNMc/x6LU8SDX0NY1ySSo2Z+9ufFI 0eCfUVevx5YukwXtH97CUFFPaALorftwN0tdG4cH/Z03pN6MKqZ79BS1BORDD28owfgMs0Astk24 HiuOxMav1o9FxPJ1NwE9aWD/z3Iz3ORxVBRyxE4djaUri7kf4ayU3wwtXZJ07YnZmJ5rfMXxjYux l1lGRNR7Pr51D9Sl1A5M4mTr/Bi8y4H1xu348w1BjGzp059Rf+O8oD80cOgFTQwmHuXDYyqNW1Tj z2IsybFkxhJ6RZR/JlSGcF5lRGfGL1Ctx6ve+wWr6wULZkS8TCPOywzrZUSIj4yc7KVfb9rG21zb eIMp3aCS9zFaUZ0KF3/tjxIF5WTihsyOyklY+8G0k/XwHJjxK1gV1BZiUZjLcp2EJAXZUzSq9LPe ARI14VSijRQVhzSY3lVQyTLtbjKFTBNmivYy3HJphHp8uIQ6+hiQiVx3WoWitxAL0NyG6r6gmPzd +PAJOTukjhGTjgiglzaHJYB+5ZpUw2dEm+jnXH+GMQkoSiiSOpJS8wRRlUXjPyOsRP/xG9FUrRq/ 1w1mINeqaAkyuqXkelkebcFmSe/pQzvoHbQC1GTAPr2c06aEPYUeXxMo4Z9b6TxrO71qhmjgBQiS zhvsFwwWAAqaPzUMaGZ8dJaBxgbWMDJK4pe4VkQ9q8N1wAeygo3xbDaooqs4xMaRuP+cxGf5AgYB gbfS88nBWtjWdLMQ7pDGwpsJa9LpIJ9nmblwwdSISViqaDKcrsLRj8c3Gaijw5oMQAZQqoBwaH3P SV16Q7AKsgS3pH5/MWMKXpJPaemFYdMCeE1Ou6ugupA5MRnayytpu57bO8OyVNvZBinLfSF8Zzdc pe14Wzj1tiKeNWMJrR3l5EVq10IGeIyv3Qr6KXy3tUPpojmgaGsVY8WJBGRIMA7i26P/AJ8ogRFl bmRzdHJlYW0KZW5kb2JqCjYgMCBvYmoKNTU3NAplbmRvYmoKMTEgMCBvYmoKPDwvTGVuZ3RoIDEy IDAgUi9GaWx0ZXIgL0ZsYXRlRGVjb2RlPj4Kc3RyZWFtCnic7V1Zs93EEX6/v+I8npPiitm0kScS UoRUQgpy8wR5uL4LNnjDwTjkZwR+cGakkaY13T0z0tHFOMGUsUpnpNl6/bp79O1BVFIdhPtvurh5 diEOH9u/X118e9FV2v0ZfoDXN88Ov7u6eP/z7mCfurq/EFXf90YOv8lDK6ru0DaiMoerZxdfHD85 KVV1sumOz0+XolK96VtzPLhradq2V8ebk67srRfgZ9j0u9OlqmRT193x1cm+StTH6/GJf54uZaVU 37ew0Xvg1bCbH8eHvjr1VSuFVsen4Rnft72sj4/Ate8ItIRvfOZum7rv6+Nr8BBoDYb1JFz6cXdt DRv4vr4Bb7obbz0Gt17QHd3ip8bFMrqfxtzUrYwWe2gPpsHM6Dm49vMwupkG7y5/OCm7rErJ409j B7BP8Mjz0z+u/nShalHVXWfp5erWksjNYpVdM9g5MbVxAbVUi25e4oZwmi/xyrmu7vB4/U48ZwYB m8IOwoIHGiNeBVbj36fLplJN3U/twIqCZi+YraCXAbzjcUzKuq0X24ZnrQyknLv53uFkN83t3eW0 eZdSW04fNhCyK2Tj72i+eQmaXENirbkn4EvvfVP4O3jsMaYCQgp4qRRtDXjNgonqRi7a3S12Kx5s JM90o7exWCRAEIu9BzaPZbfw1nIuY14QqDrLdQOTm7aSopmY/Ff2i3rgtg+35JY75lMwojs8cf/C XtVs136ZtTQzyw3XgPn9pm5n/seY+b8HtwiW9a1uFv8sZjyYAOCSEQ0vMBWtlB6FYkMqVSw5KsZc 8dddJ+vjhydZ1a2xO5GfJD8DqP9pLe7bc9wGRJdvCe488kzv7puJ6ZOmCNyOe7IFw0vEtCYrU1Eb A6YWRsLvSsxyD24ycfz9mp6Kb26prMuuUODbcV8A344DbyyJRiIn0jtLTXj8gGbrpV5tOo79Cesa 0DTQfH7VsQUOLtESDl2Al/D6z/1K6L9BW2PZQogj+OowDk5XLEm2F9Ic3wxMXTe8fQ/p4j6W9XdI na/SR3eeXWXVCj2xq5+HWdI/oca+T3NjGAnDNMlnwIh5n6jA4IFN6MVOq1qiJeROwvDJWwcEfXRC tZkdG5QwaYv7/QNsTfvbPD/DVmm7dkn4wwOEphiavpkVVoa2h9aEh7dUU4yHm1aGjEykZcYqGh+e KKVxZjSrbGzwDk4+hOEEP+4H72yrqlH9xOOEqfmI2aO0/lmpoZ9Qgipcvea2N+agFd5B+eDozWRc pT28hOCNPwcsDu1v6HCPGwiY3IszoRfmNLS+MTe61gQLM8xeYDZnTJXEG/FuCGW4xkAGsBqEU8yc fPJP3882erjCLqW7C8aDpU5KCRWwLlzHBRzitD1NbNiKX75k1O2i6ho18f06ql2pXss5jcEZApf4 qUGCouRFeg4DB3mYZHSwaiEG0eXV5rg0l7KfOOpvp0tTae2sYY6NaFiGacHoJkTMg/0NNy9LfwSZ b+dhwFHXSOUydJxuuM2xfpqcX9CKrzGvhB8JcqPJKOPnQn34w+zWdo2JdOjggX06W5bBB706iaox QqjGu+7u55UsRTuNeasyiA7whrBGTM9LNyvW8gho+pYR/Uhzg6GTfDguK+BDBZiPg0Y+nPXZLWgN rwm1sEUrUTqjRL1gZMPx8LZugSAJ4BIBSZSMi9U0bniIncKuE94PHPUECWi/r7qphJIL8frHecug dA1uwh1rc4cBcoE9RhCtNE/CWMD7aNiBoK6npOTnpK4XMBBsyLsWcA5hkx7jmcXcG6CDsKOMz8IJ lbR+PyPS2Lp5DRK2EVXbzxI2D5+Bu3v5CyshiExY1j2cDMv67lTTs4A8Kbe/BzZOAAWg5QN8B7+s wHfAogdi8WeLyU9nPgpgOdKHxixZODD5GgUTR/55tQ4gSic+w8h+f7rUlbZtp5Fp2QOV/impvQts +oyAJuQcjxZGlPCU7h0Dq44qGIUOKX3kPlkJPXPfg9M8j1FyC0q8lVhEZm1eMi+9RjC5XwfALjBY PWFmUIdxtjsg0XQWyboAFdLXGGuIkXTal854fiu5/mbmLcitYbDIgmR8C9rqZCiNYBMmynwdY3+r PAAqTvPpyDe6r0QjJ74Z5ZwyVqIHZ2CzB1DuVBPShnYJCqL8m0Lh+4b1Zm70q7sd3c5GX/8zt2Mc 9ltmTYsdZ/gyYp3TkBYYlCdDrdPKjzHmvjzOO/ERod08+iFle/zyNLf86WSMcTvhcv26ShiQ7df5 dD/VN1WtDrX9x2UDPrs41qerr9nsQC0sh9jW7v9DemC1sHzGbbcT7XUD3Ye/uCnXqo7QGVqywXQC bNVgEegzDq1n6rr/w9XFZxd2gAfTGjvK9mBMfagPr+4u7jfnREplKrtGQ2rkMGsmiBqMo6fkgIMR sJfEpgIfJOqE+CrrOzFD2Za2EEgV2JI5GbsjbGHaup/c28taV0bLGhKoBqTEwRZ/n31gIoQG42+T mUHE18Hsy/Y3rRPcRhI6IZZhRVzknFmOLGNQIQba4WYQxhoXoqOtyXvSbsB2SayWWJFeqKSX6Qwu u/cbH4AzVV1PNkIYcyaNj8smKU71BTIfTATI90wG2i3TKWlBh1uEwn2TM4Fwog6jx24gps+OHNJF iKINuwBsiXvCmqcBH4xZOS4GergAAVuOnME0Eyle15jFA7QI2PEVZdEwXn3SkoB8yEFvOBsR+PBJ tJGN3zkfghkj5Ag6AwuFz2jjfc/Ms20BrdF56Kq6k1gw+NfICEkujCqXYV10HinnNGPHNmQa5FOQ 6Cj/I3o3aalQkqRYS1O3BJYQQ2J+2YEkICzGSQczHjOOKyGGTXoItH2XzASJ42R0sDEZqB5e4dVC JDY4zY2ZeJncStsEBM1jb5zWWltyPoH78tdZ1QBobyOPfOLZtK30XKuCAMNOdFnAEMydFBFkgK9A Ue/AWAVLv7T+2pYDzZPiuVFzHGlZYgJzDgOLDkue0dWUmcwFfR5hSqRJNmNC02qHx7TqREHainyV capNpyns00+i6eBmEPxSXJmwYXvXaF82BRiH5r3ohpp7tKjbSrSKChZtEyUryIbOxFkd+EqTzVIS UJHzXlei128bI9G92BcjMa1IIiRsoi0yEJOmJgM87BUDS4ax6QTUV5RSJjCaBzP3bhkWuEnhwZk8 8P2SvbAi5rK+zqzKgg+tT3wvihtz4iodu1jWPaWjZyilHIrToISRUR0ll/fCmlcKquHIOOZhp2XG SCyIXhNaPBO8XaEsGds800FBGO5+1sK0oEkLCBo6LRcqb+b4NB3b+YYhqxVSopxfx6S4umq7CNga cK/SNM2I4ckMsbEPoOcMIJ53FGqVXXsO1IqW8P8banWDOgtpBaPhNCIY3n3GvN0Ca9JQLUZtnezJ 4J25zQGahcmWCGhteO8H0PkbOVN21trsIWdOyAIkWXDp51AHFTPYkaMB+PnH/uLV9qNHnAlpzMHI ZoouAm+dMcdf4k2O8Jly85FouT03kUFvAuZLszcmMCJNMdr8gryEVCVtKnqWybPYUPqw7E0olpHY pKLRlrQ0Mp9NUO4o+lv/sr2LSgtJrUxBassmc3RlXdtGExaOHgKozKAegSbBiMykJY58L3R70Kau nQPpwLvJg3SnDxnnUWpjGvdjc7AsMf52vowQjRVXRqgpFB/Zn56/JCUCbpBuztiUu5ZIZCrz3BuK xQrkm4KMdRf7LqtszodXhpeVMxzTEkmfzDCIYl2U3u5TIbX1dvrZzSwwYNO1Ew90ekAq/XlStLKj jAXeEYDc2Tl0R48ZMKqX7bnwjqkt35nAeMcPXZrQ0JXuhBMAbev6atXZPTV1ZQCL23mHntp+npW1 FGaBc96RZ6YVVdtAoUKBGGibiCj1zgaR9XSigWVrywFavxyVkXZRZ4oQAktrK8O9tJb7Smvd9YvR x7ikd3n6GR3f4oiX5jA53220IQKfKDUosbrejaRkqytFz/xnVBPI+typsOnnl+yU3Hxn5Dnn1E0g TG1mn/cV6Samx0wY4fTAHtGzoAMj4BWxaToG6q9JG5EsgR8F0CBklGwiIXOmbGnrSo08hq21bHJx ESGCZH1iBSNvM3322+x9EwlGbyP+Y3+od43/aOsOmGQECMV1COKm82TBrMLJb3sFh3Z39DMZU4lj KzYXChKuX6r51+E2HcDZtx5xoS8mH16288EmvIqREaT5v6xihtBPoYpxsjfs1hIdnYNAXV81cpEt NVWv9iFylzpJpKRCFhVtT/keUcVVOcQVidUCVk3J+RVlh0MedDqDKps+hbvjckhCUIg5XCgTQj77 rNC7OTQr4+MRoiQtqOVTcGL5wXzJwx1yNYcFAQd0soRv2IaybSQHwJJx4QZ8eAuRzZOAaGmpj9+K Fw8aYjDXSi4qHqkcq+BiEUcIkYp1UyCr/Mi9kqMXtriBy50emJmeQinnnm1ZcBVoZ2juTScOjXxu qq6eVS57/hCbYbCWBcuBwndVYW/0CTnh8hKYAUHLQyD/JbhGxbRRBojf7s0nj90WtFl5fjCq4WXa pbNAtkHwyeN/kTLLV59yWh23XFaPDIcCj57g6P/9+eLqN18ca7B672hmROSn/VqE9paL0N6B1Ai6 tu2dzZIgEiYiE4UsFcMibnE2N5oZMFYISwvG6srBQ/xq7CVxnlEeUyutQcpv7rmFJ6AlMivozDZO v09lYJ2ay8A4C6R6oBiRdp/q6Q6qNRPwdmBkQXDlttTMIdCF4NBkm6zMQUdkk0fh5U/bZbwxVMua gU7GiKMQ5qBUO0TNpDQ4bKbcmTMPkuTgzn5quPARVPVp82jjwWiPWB6iYdwQTvpZEy/S7M6IqT1K JTPF17SyyiboZr4AMsobVYm+JXw4zBqqbTaxBje5vBROTh+vYimQlHT6iIyovKPFl5rPcWElfXKT 1B3me2niSNZefG+aKdxPpOGvU7pkWQq2xO8m9wQtgfDJFm2/W2i8MS40Ps/SLvyU3zEurEB5CGd9 y85K73Ex30aATVoLftcA2zybX2CBFXHEwbkmYsH5a0Fq0dArY1oG24ED5XLGZ+gYmT9cvixR/Zkp KiItJXqUr2cof/YTk8swHH+cODV2GVwrrnskgDXCtl6JePLWyPAzGjQsuhqO6aeypfQiW4E4KMhV UPV6EaVvALs/JEbzUXy0LuCHmxilAuKIyVDIn0xALNwcdkIxsQL7jEEeklKHOBoHQyM0l3sc5P1w xy/kDvjDh8BlmHJ2jKIKp4pc96jTvEOz6QjcPY7q2DLKbXlL+FRIKvQQPpszbsD6Yz4RSp1UM0tw DfF5ObjmXhYcJLqCuBzGxv4e8cnKkmAbflE6oE6EmHkw4GeD61KnNmGom/tKIXmm8MfkaccbPer0 BnNydNXBucAghcYVkt9LXh0+Zwb7QahY2LVsTlD6WFLGGHsYFz2dfbT8JAQZ83yovG7duB6GJOEG VrEAAyYsKBaNuKQ/7+6y1VTMEiXNrZ2qqPJ7SiKwsGSJDICm4Dxpd8ToEc5Tdg9it96+9IHgPFn3 URY/A+dlAnCMa1fu+D1sbvh2t2+QUqw+dmKeVimId5aqKQ0UQbH3W5pMsy7YGcD5kzkT0k4ZR/dK ckQyBhcd0GCpJTYdV0mW8lrIjU476QbGmJXUcoTtRKMwf9u7DwPb2SGmKhLXweIQRxrmpMaDerTp zsaRTFfVTRgu6fHFxitveTDSJB+ip1ObdxZ+PDlnqZGh612TnkJIDhmdZaetIo5+CoWVJYhgvSjt 6EEPVXqya7u98FxtrZheBXriznYFRVcjJ8p+V5xXqmaqBHkrSK/Q+yK9YD4M1luuj8sdcQaCzSZO lhxtsqeFkXDXYs7hEjCTdVor8UmIwubcWjq3BpkJtE+EBn03ezONij+/lCr8LxdSGz5dw+lvJpWS Dgjmjtpc9ZWbIaESf+Umqp6FMc1wjFZbieXJ0xHc0s+Q3/A1SHAJyyuYjGuiSoz/VBquvEBMtgsL xYgH6BdCwpxqB6YOBz1l+CsWdegQ0tw3xQnMlOa77Merl/SHc40HElpaHuMnmWw7OYPEBQl6fgVd dUKm6gNDAnRVOm040+vwY+ytbLLbHtwL+WnmVSpe49f8Ug5HCMBiFsRKv17vdz1uwS9nPOdfQ5/S WXed6qqm6QY/7FzzTkljFUnfWKtZqJAB4Zo3A9lOD6gG2rddb38U0Td6+qpv5gd0Nz9g3Nd+OhN1 MUxnbPH5x/6i0O/lOmqcLwk6+sJKhdpKF6Fc4Y2wV1L0Pbx86UqMtK61++zCcFdaK/D90ABcvnEq yqXj4ovK6SzZNL0TLkSPT8LltROXom61gU/dhnG8CJc3ZNuv5h5A0+/nm++Ts3vlTjW3OlU6/3R+ 6z+tALOyd7oQdiqXp7Yydr8188jT8Hpw95p4J/gZjEmFMYlwKcOlGS/1Yu3HVZVtZlFVA8YPxjQ/ /nxUh6KzNAJPf/U9vg7t/AXYArRuy+V6kh7tHTGa7wLJhfeAZ8AOUJMZRiEtB8C+6QUKU5yfDj1+ M90CY/zhJFtL2q3eNEMw8OfEy8l5385DDIN9dpKd/blbEBg1jPCa+RZ4IrzmDhLKLFQbbaVdbwah qk1t/eZyocrJIiclW125cN8oiu6HIXatJzLHqkFW3KDFoTfQMUh4yhJA1y9UQ92PqkGLeRJrIBVm MlK0VWOW0zmMAqltegimfHbxX/iR9WNlbmRzdHJlYW0KZW5kb2JqCjEyIDAgb2JqCjUwMDUKZW5k b2JqCjE1IDAgb2JqCjw8L0xlbmd0aCAxNiAwIFIvRmlsdGVyIC9GbGF0ZURlY29kZT4+CnN0cmVh bQp4nM1X207cMBB9z1fkMZGI8T0xb70JtVIrUW2fSh9gLyzSXoBSUL+j/eA6iZOcrJ2wC0IqCGHZ 48x45pzj8W1MCeMxLX+bwXQd0fjU/l1Ft1FBRPlTLeB4uo7fTqLjr0Vsd00WESXGGMmqNRbnlBRx rimR8WQdfU/yNKOEG2lymZByzGSeG57EMP6WMqJyRUWyAesZjOepIPbfXcpJQVVv85966X31DSl5 Y/szzRjh3Jg8mfZ2a5ZcpxknTCtVJJe1FztUOL2B6avUkJxR0Q/aubmo/zkXSxez0KJnPPBlNFmX JlIZo5ItmHRBO4e4ZwaGbvm+9mQjaEK77mZW3fBvvXjczbhEnieVRykM7gwPz9PW1oWlVc6SN3U9 dVmEH5NPEZeKSK4sPiYzCwlXmSJvg4azYz1WQaejpan8u4Oj4czPemVaxyIYT36BBQYBsUEQ98Hh c6LEKYeibdj9TTg1fuFbpHBFy/xnTQEyJiw7qyLcALsaWm1hDtdxHmjlDrDqsO1AdTTAc7dhNl4X NMWpjQ/2x5b0aIh5utilfj3BOIeq7K72vrAcj/C+Oz2uwvTSjxtrPh8H64n7UKknZS2FJpRb4c2Y aUr5MeU2fqaLZOEK+UQBFu15Icz5bqZwI1Td2T34p/LSuArnBsRwzL+fYNiIFMHUQaBHkOSn3Qcs dIH6EOCpT8Ie3HZlERi69CEKq3tsarNV6SvjRMtWXwMg8+IK2CDqXAZYW/oyA90ogNnnquCD7xXy +Qg3SeM8UNc9MhW4dvfYhZYNzXjyLs0EEdZQJ6dVgIL1K12LtuY20XXmuZTJ75TbBHCpUZhd5UCY AcFh6K/8oRgi6/6X2ggdAlp88EUFDPc5PyTenRagI7TA+Q4hFx49Byq+HQDFlxZ2k5TaAlHKNdS/ 62+GsOgRbdFO+KIx9QSgx6C6gxJW9kXD8DCVRqFcIvAJtpcb/zu2H9TXdf1OnS6glX8ljd096GL0 Hgpcg0C/gY4gALv9m4aX8q9sfQ6lYInbl1Kwefwp07QyWaCX+Vx+QfFSWrHrHE1+ZbFPt1AZblJF K5R8mERnkTI0toBTROextEKs4rt5tHj265dxSXisc9M8f0/Ckhqg1IBqj77/BgAz3pqCowH8+EK9 9Hm73yu5o3T4GTqg0ZeD8H+FV9vcf5a81n3Rb/xrZTfEFHmj7AE9Gepc4FyLQ/rNntgN9ILBGyFc gXEMveTKETZlzekFkxwP5KtJReez6B+0LeRAZW5kc3RyZWFtCmVuZG9iagoxNiAwIG9iago5MzcK ZW5kb2JqCjQgMCBvYmoKPDwvVHlwZS9QYWdlL01lZGlhQm94IFswIDAgNTk1IDg0Ml0KL1JvdGF0 ZSAwL1BhcmVudCAzIDAgUgovUmVzb3VyY2VzPDwvUHJvY1NldFsvUERGIC9UZXh0XQovRm9udCA5 IDAgUgo+PgovQ29udGVudHMgNSAwIFIKPj4KZW5kb2JqCjEwIDAgb2JqCjw8L1R5cGUvUGFnZS9N ZWRpYUJveCBbMCAwIDU5NSA4NDJdCi9Sb3RhdGUgMC9QYXJlbnQgMyAwIFIKL1Jlc291cmNlczw8 L1Byb2NTZXRbL1BERiAvVGV4dF0KL0ZvbnQgMTMgMCBSCj4+Ci9Db250ZW50cyAxMSAwIFIKPj4K ZW5kb2JqCjE0IDAgb2JqCjw8L1R5cGUvUGFnZS9NZWRpYUJveCBbMCAwIDU5NSA4NDJdCi9Sb3Rh dGUgMC9QYXJlbnQgMyAwIFIKL1Jlc291cmNlczw8L1Byb2NTZXRbL1BERiAvVGV4dF0KL0ZvbnQg MTcgMCBSCj4+Ci9Db250ZW50cyAxNSAwIFIKPj4KZW5kb2JqCjMgMCBvYmoKPDwgL1R5cGUgL1Bh Z2VzIC9LaWRzIFsKNCAwIFIKMTAgMCBSCjE0IDAgUgpdIC9Db3VudCAzCi9Sb3RhdGUgMD4+CmVu ZG9iagoxIDAgb2JqCjw8L1R5cGUgL0NhdGFsb2cgL1BhZ2VzIDMgMCBSCi9NZXRhZGF0YSAxOSAw IFIKPj4KZW5kb2JqCjkgMCBvYmoKPDwvUjcKNyAwIFIvUjgKOCAwIFI+PgplbmRvYmoKMTMgMCBv YmoKPDwvUjgKOCAwIFI+PgplbmRvYmoKMTcgMCBvYmoKPDwvUjgKOCAwIFI+PgplbmRvYmoKNyAw IG9iago8PC9CYXNlRm9udC9UaW1lcy1Cb2xkL1R5cGUvRm9udAovU3VidHlwZS9UeXBlMT4+CmVu ZG9iago4IDAgb2JqCjw8L0Jhc2VGb250L1RpbWVzLVJvbWFuL1R5cGUvRm9udAovRW5jb2Rpbmcg MTggMCBSL1N1YnR5cGUvVHlwZTE+PgplbmRvYmoKMTggMCBvYmoKPDwvVHlwZS9FbmNvZGluZy9E aWZmZXJlbmNlc1sKMTQ2L3F1b3RlcmlnaHQvcXVvdGVkYmxsZWZ0L3F1b3RlZGJscmlnaHRdPj4K ZW5kb2JqCjE5IDAgb2JqCjw8L1R5cGUvTWV0YWRhdGEKL1N1YnR5cGUvWE1ML0xlbmd0aCAxNTk2 Pj5zdHJlYW0KPD94cGFja2V0IGJlZ2luPSfvu78nIGlkPSdXNU0wTXBDZWhpSHpyZVN6TlRjemtj OWQnPz4KPD9hZG9iZS14YXAtZmlsdGVycyBlc2M9IkNSTEYiPz4KPHg6eG1wbWV0YSB4bWxuczp4 PSdhZG9iZTpuczptZXRhLycgeDp4bXB0az0nWE1QIHRvb2xraXQgMi45LjEtMTMsIGZyYW1ld29y ayAxLjYnPgo8cmRmOlJERiB4bWxuczpyZGY9J2h0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzE5OTkvMDIvMjIt cmRmLXN5bnRheC1ucyMnIHhtbG5zOmlYPSdodHRwOi8vbnMuYWRvYmUuY29tL2lYLzEuMC8nPgo8 cmRmOkRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIHJkZjphYm91dD0nZWY3ODMxMjctMWFkNi0xMWU0LTAwMDAtM2NmMjE4 MGZiZTE3JyB4bWxuczpwZGY9J2h0dHA6Ly9ucy5hZG9iZS5jb20vcGRmLzEuMy8nIHBkZjpQcm9k dWNlcj0nR1BMIEdob3N0c2NyaXB0IDguNjMnLz4KPHJkZjpEZXNjcmlwdGlvbiByZGY6YWJvdXQ9 J2VmNzgzMTI3LTFhZDYtMTFlNC0wMDAwLTNjZjIxODBmYmUxNycgeG1sbnM6eGFwPSdodHRwOi8v bnMuYWRvYmUuY29tL3hhcC8xLjAvJyB4YXA6TW9kaWZ5RGF0ZT0nMjAxNC0wNy0zMVQwODoyNDo1 MSswMjowMCcgeGFwOkNyZWF0ZURhdGU9JzIwMTQtMDctMzFUMDg6MjQ6NTErMDI6MDAnPjx4YXA6 Q3JlYXRvclRvb2w+XDM3NlwzNzdcMDAwUFwwMDBEXDAwMEZcMDAwQ1wwMDByXDAwMGVcMDAwYVww MDB0XDAwMG9cMDAwclwwMDAgXDAwMFZcMDAwZVwwMDByXDAwMHNcMDAwaVwwMDBvXDAwMG5cMDAw IFwwMDAwXDAwMC5cMDAwOVwwMDAuXDAwMDY8L3hhcDpDcmVhdG9yVG9vbD48L3JkZjpEZXNjcmlw dGlvbj4KPHJkZjpEZXNjcmlwdGlvbiByZGY6YWJvdXQ9J2VmNzgzMTI3LTFhZDYtMTFlNC0wMDAw LTNjZjIxODBmYmUxNycgeG1sbnM6eGFwTU09J2h0dHA6Ly9ucy5hZG9iZS5jb20veGFwLzEuMC9t bS8nIHhhcE1NOkRvY3VtZW50SUQ9J2VmNzgzMTI3LTFhZDYtMTFlNC0wMDAwLTNjZjIxODBmYmUx NycvPgo8cmRmOkRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIHJkZjphYm91dD0nZWY3ODMxMjctMWFkNi0xMWU0LTAwMDAt M2NmMjE4MGZiZTE3JyB4bWxuczpkYz0naHR0cDovL3B1cmwub3JnL2RjL2VsZW1lbnRzLzEuMS8n IGRjOmZvcm1hdD0nYXBwbGljYXRpb24vcGRmJz48ZGM6dGl0bGU+PHJkZjpBbHQ+PHJkZjpsaSB4 bWw6bGFuZz0neC1kZWZhdWx0Jz5cMzc2XDM3N1wwMDBJXDAwMEFcMDAwTlwwMDBBXDAwMCBcMDAw SVwwMDBDXDAwMEdcMDAwIFwwMDBjXDAwMGhcMDAwYVwwMDByXDAwMHRcMDAwZVwwMDByXDAwMCBc MDAwclwwMDAxPC9yZGY6bGk+PC9yZGY6QWx0PjwvZGM6dGl0bGU+PGRjOmNyZWF0b3I+PHJkZjpT ZXE+PHJkZjpsaT5cMzc2XDM3N1wwMDBSXDAwMGlcMDAwY1wwMDBoXDAwMGFcMDAwclwwMDBkPC9y ZGY6bGk+PC9yZGY6U2VxPjwvZGM6Y3JlYXRvcj48L3JkZjpEZXNjcmlwdGlvbj4KPC9yZGY6UkRG Pgo8L3g6eG1wbWV0YT4KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAo8P3hwYWNrZXQg ZW5kPSd3Jz8+CmVuZHN0cmVhbQplbmRvYmoKMiAwIG9iago8PC9Qcm9kdWNlcihHUEwgR2hvc3Rz Y3JpcHQgOC42MykKL0NyZWF0aW9uRGF0ZShEOjIwMTQwNzMxMDgyNDUxKzAyJzAwJykKL01vZERh dGUoRDoyMDE0MDczMTA4MjQ1MSswMicwMCcpCi9UaXRsZShcMzc2XDM3N1wwMDBJXDAwMEFcMDAw TlwwMDBBXDAwMCBcMDAwSVwwMDBDXDAwMEdcMDAwIFwwMDBjXDAwMGhcMDAwYVwwMDByXDAwMHRc MDAwZVwwMDByXDAwMCBcMDAwclwwMDAxKQovQ3JlYXRvcihcMzc2XDM3N1wwMDBQXDAwMERcMDAw RlwwMDBDXDAwMHJcMDAwZVwwMDBhXDAwMHRcMDAwb1wwMDByXDAwMCBcMDAwVlwwMDBlXDAwMHJc MDAwc1wwMDBpXDAwMG9cMDAwblwwMDAgXDAwMDBcMDAwLlwwMDA5XDAwMC5cMDAwNikKL0F1dGhv cihcMzc2XDM3N1wwMDBSXDAwMGlcMDAwY1wwMDBoXDAwMGFcMDAwclwwMDBkKQovS2V5d29yZHMo KQovU3ViamVjdCgpPj5lbmRvYmoKeHJlZgowIDIwCjAwMDAwMDAwMDAgNjU1MzUgZiAKMDAwMDAx MjMxNyAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDE0MzkxIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMTIyMzUgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAw MDAxMTgwNiAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDAwMDE1IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMDU2NTkgMDAwMDAgbiAK MDAwMDAxMjQ4MCAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDEyNTQ1IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMTIzODIgMDAwMDAg biAKMDAwMDAxMTk0NyAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDA1Njc5IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMTA3NTYgMDAw MDAgbiAKMDAwMDAxMjQyMCAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDEyMDkxIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMTA3Nzcg MDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAxMTc4NiAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDEyNDUwIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMTI2 MjcgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAxMjcxOCAwMDAwMCBuIAp0cmFpbGVyCjw8IC9TaXplIDIwIC9Sb290 IDEgMCBSIC9JbmZvIDIgMCBSCi9JRCBbPERERUY0NTI2QTg4QzlBODY4Nzk4NTdBMUQ5ODQzOUYx PjxEREVGNDUyNkE4OEM5QTg2ODc5ODU3QTFEOTg0MzlGMT5dCj4+CnN0YXJ0eHJlZgoxNDg0MQol JUVPRgo= ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01CFB3AC.7FCC3570-- From nobody Sat Aug 9 02:38:29 2014 Return-Path: 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 EBAC11A0B07 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 02:38:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.791 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 ScLafCu9z9Cp for ; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 02:38:19 -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 722F91AC0D2 for ; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 02:38:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.133.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s799btru000340 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 9 Aug 2014 02:38:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1407577089; x=1407663489; bh=ozlvfjWmbPiSuEZiAaeMwY6+kbLOL2Qkd7ssom6ymQU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=IkKbM5JP6l2fJfGfWkFgY/CKjAZJmlncSheQYpFbmkvb+RCFDeBJiueTxmGgEoywo Ryi4VWIP8grdUnYyBcd988+NC7iJZtbLI4kg7rZEKH9VS+bJtVYE0/7gaCMt2N5XUI C9kNkGxPSJlITJTI68yLuf/npeT79cNOvzlWaeiE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1407577089; x=1407663489; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ozlvfjWmbPiSuEZiAaeMwY6+kbLOL2Qkd7ssom6ymQU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=VdPIuNnW/YP1dk4Ohu2UE9NGc4MwJi4vvHQh/WqBySLW2wcwi3NWfpuuVO1EKAq/Z NgSQ/EQYgAid2Bix9360zPm+25PdwGf+aGbnwq96rLWpFf9F5nQy7d5/SzwvWFzMhJ hd2wM4eN+j5YEoKSZP6hU0pQSzBDZ1h2Dp/Cg130= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140808234619.0ba5d560@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 02:34:28 -0700 To: rhill@hill-a.ch, ianaplan@ietf.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/eJc1t4CHCQFkclDX3CUFWfW0YDU Cc: "Rhill@Alum. Mit. Edu" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] FW: ICG Charter Open for Public Comment X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 09:38:22 -0000 Hi Richard, At 23:32 08-08-2014, Richard Hill wrote: >Please find attached my comments on the draft ICG charter. I'll apologize beforehand for commenting about the comments in "IANA ICG charter r1.pdf" as it might not fit within the description of a rich and productive discussion. I assume that a disclosure of interests would be repetitive as I already did that on another mailing list recently. From Page 1: 'In this context, it must be stressed that the "Internet community" is not the same as "the global multistakeholder community". Indeed, the term "Internet community" is usually used to refer to the community of people who actively participate in the design, maintenance, evolution, and promotion of the Internet, possibily including intensive users. As one well-respected member of this community put the matter: "Internet Community includes all those people who are part of the I* organizations and their fellow travellers"' I assume that "I* organizations" in the above refers to IETF, ICANN and ITU. I am not a frequent traveller to the IETF and I am not a frequent traveller to ICANN. It is possible to verify that by looking at the list of meeting attendees. Am I part of the "Internet community"? I'll leave that to the fellow travellers to determine. It is my understanding that the term "internet community" has been used over the years to avoid excluding anyone. My interpretation of it is the people out there whom I do not know and yet whom I would listen to if that is what I said I would do. A quick look at the RFC Series shows an occurrence of the term "internet community" in 1989. 'In contrast, "global multistakeholder community" includes people and organizations that are not part of the "Internet community", including people and organizations that, at present, do not have access to the Internet.' I found the following occurrences for "multistakeholder community" http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-SG/speeches/2008/may21.aspx http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/2993 There wasn't any occurrences from ietf.org (excluding a message forwaded to one mailing list). On Page 3: "Motivation: the composition of the ICG does not fully represent the global multistakeholder community, so the ICG should not make any decisions, much less by "rough consensus".' I have not been able to find a definition of "global multistakeholder community". The issue would be about the determination of "rough consensus". For example, would the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group ignore my comments on the grounds that I am not part of a community? I hope not. There are times when it is useful for things to be done and also seen to be done. That might be what "open" is about. Is it worth the effort? I do things without asking myself that question. Would I ask those who seek to represent me in the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group to put in an effort? I did ask Ms Cooper and Mr Arkko a little thing about the web [1]. Regards, S. Moonesamy 1. http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/current/msg00492.html From nobody Mon Aug 11 05:33:35 2014 Return-Path: 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 2C8991A0670 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 05:33:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 dkgA_PjZcMMB for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 05:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3B91A0647 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 05:33:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16493F2C0F9; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:33:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xJpO6OMQe6ao; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:32:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.0.0.10] (nc-76-3-83-124.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [76.3.83.124]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639D8F2C0F5; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:32:58 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-8--43562084 From: Russ Housley X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:32:47 -0400 Message-Id: References: To: rhill@hill-a.ch, "Rhill@Alum. Mit. Edu" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/rEnLmLGxaUhKnEf2T0L3RDHyKAc Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] FW: ICG Charter Open for Public Comment X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 12:33:33 -0000 --Apple-Mail-8--43562084 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Richard: I do not understand your suggested edits to the first sentence. At the = start, you seem to agree with the ICG that there is one (and only one) = deliverable. Then, as your revised sentence goes on, your create a = second deliverable, a final report. Russ On Aug 9, 2014, at 2:32 AM, Richard Hill wrote: > Dear Alissa, > =20 > Thank you for this. > =20 > Please find attached my comments on the draft ICG charter. >=20 > Best, > Richard > =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alissa = Cooper > Sent: vendredi, 8. ao=FBt 2014 23:32 > To: ianaplan@ietf.org; internetgovtech@iab.org > Subject: [Ianaplan] FW: ICG Charter Open for Public Comment >=20 > FYI. >=20 > There has been some discussion of the ICG charter on = internetgovtech@iab.org, and I think it=92s the preference of Jari and = myself for further IETF/IAB discussion of the charter to happen there so = we can coalesce and reflect the results of that discussion back to the = ICG. But if people would rather submit comments individually and = directly to the ICG, information about how to do so is below. >=20 > Alissa >=20 > On 8/8/14, 2:12 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" wrote: >=20 > The ICG has opened a public comment period for their charter that will = end on 15 August 2014 at 23:59 UTC. >=20 > Public comment submission process links: >=20 > Comment submission: icg-forum@icann.org > List of comments submitted via this site: = http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum > Charter: = https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-charter-coordination-gro= up-17jun14-en.pdf [PDF, 43.7 KB] > Deadline: August 15, 2014 at 23:59 UTC >=20 > Please view the full announcement here: = https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-08-en > _______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing = list ianatransition@icann.org = https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan --Apple-Mail-8--43562084 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Dear=20 Alissa,
 
Thank you for=20= this.
 
Please find = attached my=20 comments on the draft ICG charter.

Best,
Richard
 
-----Original Message-----
From: = Ianaplan=20 [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alissa=20 Cooper
Sent: vendredi, 8. ao=FBt 2014 23:32
To:=20 ianaplan@ietf.org; internetgovtech@iab.org
= Subject: [Ianaplan] FW:=20 ICG Charter Open for Public Comment

FYI.

There has been some discussion of the ICG charter=20 on internetgovtech@iab.org, and = I think it=92s the preference of Jari and=20 myself for further IETF/IAB discussion of the charter to happen there = so we=20 can coalesce and reflect the results of that discussion back to the = ICG. But=20 if people would rather submit comments individually and directly to = the ICG,=20 information about how to do so is below.

Alissa

On 8/8/14, 2:12 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>=20= wrote:

The ICG has = opened a=20 public comment period for their charter that will end on 15 = August=20 2014 at 23:59 UTC.

Public = comment=20 submission process links:

Comment=20 submission: icg-forum@icann.org
List of = comments=20 submitted via this site: http://forum.icann.org/lis= ts/icg-forum
Deadline: = August 15,=20 2014 at 23:59 UTC

Please view = the full=20 announcement here: https://www= .icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-08-en
____= ___________________________________________=20 ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.i= cann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition=20
<IANA ICG charter = r1.pdf>_______________________________________________
Ianapl= an mailing list
Ianaplan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.o= rg/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

= --Apple-Mail-8--43562084-- From nobody Mon Aug 11 09:38:44 2014 Return-Path: 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 03E481A0661; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:38:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 S7RV6N1Z3qZq; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:38:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.infomaniak.ch (smtp3.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A506F1A0584; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Laurie (adsl-84-226-181-181.adslplus.ch [84.226.181.181]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp3.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7BGcTwf007920; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:38:35 +0200 From: "Richard Hill" To: "Russ Housley" Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:38:18 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0038_01CFB593.6BB09BB0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/cKhE66BoC9ggs-ASmccGAnDFMdw Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] FW: ICG Charter Open for Public Comment X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:38:42 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01CFB593.6BB09BB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Russ, I suppose that the proposal would be prefaced by a cover letter, so the "final report" would be the cover letter plus conensus proposal (plus, if needed, dissenting views). Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Russ Housley Sent: lundi, 11. aot 2014 14:33 To: rhill@hill-a.ch; Rhill@Alum. Mit. Edu Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org; internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] FW: ICG Charter Open for Public Comment Richard: I do not understand your suggested edits to the first sentence. At the start, you seem to agree with the ICG that there is one (and only one) deliverable. Then, as your revised sentence goes on, your create a second deliverable, a final report. Russ On Aug 9, 2014, at 2:32 AM, Richard Hill wrote: Dear Alissa, Thank you for this. Please find attached my comments on the draft ICG charter. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: vendredi, 8. aot 2014 23:32 To: ianaplan@ietf.org; internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: [Ianaplan] FW: ICG Charter Open for Public Comment FYI. There has been some discussion of the ICG charter on internetgovtech@iab.org, and I think its the preference of Jari and myself for further IETF/IAB discussion of the charter to happen there so we can coalesce and reflect the results of that discussion back to the ICG. But if people would rather submit comments individually and directly to the ICG, information about how to do so is below. Alissa On 8/8/14, 2:12 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" wrote: The ICG has opened a public comment period for their charter that will end on 15 August 2014 at 23:59 UTC. Public comment submission process links: Comment submission: icg-forum@icann.org List of comments submitted via this site: http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum Charter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-charter-coordination-group -17jun14-en.pdf [PDF, 43.7 KB] Deadline: August 15, 2014 at 23:59 UTC Please view the full announcement here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-08-en _______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing list Ianaplan@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01CFB593.6BB09BB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear=20 Russ,
 
I=20 suppose that the proposal would be prefaced by a cover letter, so the = "final=20 report" would be the cover letter plus conensus proposal (plus, if = needed,=20 dissenting views).
 
Best,
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Ianaplan=20 [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Russ=20 Housley
Sent: lundi, 11. ao=FBt 2014 14:33
To:=20 rhill@hill-a.ch; Rhill@Alum. Mit. Edu
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org; = internetgovtech@iab.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] FW: ICG = Charter Open=20 for Public Comment

Richard:

I do not understand your suggested edits to the first sentence. =  At=20 the start, you seem to agree with the ICG that there is one (and only = one)=20 deliverable.  Then, as your revised sentence goes on, your create = a=20 second deliverable, a final report.

Russ

<IANA ICG = charter=20 = r1.pdf>_______________________________________________
Ianap= lan=20 mailing list
Ianaplan@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.= org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

------=_NextPart_000_0038_01CFB593.6BB09BB0-- From nobody Fri Aug 15 10:59:49 2014 Return-Path: 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 3F9A41A01AC for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:59:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.758 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 SQRnCoEm7E11 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 827AE1A01AE for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A73E8A031 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:59:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 13:59:42 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: ianaplan@ietf.org Message-ID: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/pD_mhTF7zvvaD_qsk3fLh1TfNTc Subject: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:59:47 -0000 --R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi all, In light of the comments in Toronto, I've revised the proposal for the charter. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com --R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="charter-2014-08-15a.txt" Scratch proposal: Charter for IANAPLAN WG version 2014-08-15a Area: General Responsible AD: Jari Arkko Chairs: TBD Background ========== The IETF stores parameters for protocols it defines in registries. These registries are maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations" section in many RFCs. For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860; over time processes and role definitions have evolved, and have been documented in supplemental agreements. ICANN has historically had a contract with the US Department of Commerce (DoC), undertaken through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In March of 2014, NTIA announced its intention to complete the evolution begun in 1997, meaning that NTIA would not need to renew its contract with ICANN when that contract expires 30 September 2015. NTIA requested a transition proposal be prepared to outline the necessary arrangements. In the case of the IETF, we expect these arrangements to consist largely of the existing well-documented practices. Tasks ===== The WG will review, comment on, evaluate, and if need be prepare text for a proposal about protocol parameters registries. It will assume the following documents continue to be in effect: - RFC 2850 (especially section 2(d)) - RFC 2860 - RFC 6220 - IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf) - ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements (updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf) It is possible that RFC 3777 and its updates are also implicated. This work is chartered exclusively to create the proposal that is needed for the transition. Possible improvements outside that scope will be set aside for future consideration. Avoiding alterations in outcomes should be pursued, even if the eventual structure (without the overarching NTIA contract) requires procedural changes in order to address the new structure. The WG will also review, comment on, and evaluate proposals from other communities about the NTIA transition, to the extent that those proposals impinge on the protocol parameters registries or the IETF. The results of any WG consensus on protocol parameters registries will, of necessity, be input but not necessarily firm restrictions on any contractual terms that are ultimately adopted by the IAB and any future IANA functions provider, or contractual terms ultimately adopted by the IAOC and any future IANA functions provider. Statements of principle and desired outcomes are more important items to be delivered by the working group than are detailed terms for future agreements. It is expected that much of the work of the WG will lie in reviewing materials produced by the IAB in its role as the interface to other organizations. Milestones ========== January 2015 -- complete protocol parameters registries proposal May 2015 -- review of other transition proposals, if needed Sept 2015 -- close --R3G7APHDIzY6R/pk-- From nobody Sun Aug 17 16:02:29 2014 Return-Path: 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 0DB241A009E for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:02:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 bLI9UzCkS7c0 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.246.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D67A1A0086 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:02:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=jwllgpP5YGetRhLtIuRGdSEazgNLovTvH6kqnC7xLic=; b=PtwSWy9p2BRKUReCXPiENJ9Hi/YAJzF55To/CtbJ5FzIYlyAKklIGMT6ckNHcKidSwg4pTduotQYVwDnFt8CegsD5gd1eufHtBtIOveuZXcLGvJAVb+ATbUOABbYrT5KHgJM/G7besEBRdvQp7HHMpoKtlV0nR70jwPNsQKfrVc=; Received: from ip68-100-74-115.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.74.115]:51551 helo=[192.168.15.115]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XJ9Su-00019T-Rt; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:02:24 -0700 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2D5F3611-B830-4CEB-9332-1FEF6A9B5B6B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Eric Burger In-Reply-To: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 19:02:23 -0400 Message-Id: <9C06776F-7103-440C-9882-007CD7AD5544@standardstrack.com> References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Ep0C08_zJynHeE7Ne94Vig_jJQU Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 23:02:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2D5F3611-B830-4CEB-9332-1FEF6A9B5B6B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 In light of the list discussions and the discussions in Toronto, this is = pretty much baked. One small suggestion. We say: This work is chartered exclusively to create the proposal that is needed for the transition. What we do not say is for whom the proposal is being prepared. I think = this is important. With a hanging =91proposal,=92 it sounds like the = work group is being chartered to think about new and nifty ways of doing = something: a proposal. I would offer two modifications. The first = makes it clear who the work product is for. The second re-emphasizes we = are not planning on opening Pandora=92s IANA Box. This work is chartered exclusively to create the transition proposal requested by NTIA to document the IETF=92s=20 expectations for the transition of the IANA function to a post-NTIA governance model. On Aug 15, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Andrew Sullivan = wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > In light of the comments in Toronto, I've revised the proposal for the = charter. =20 >=20 > A >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Andrew Sullivan > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com > = _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan --Apple-Mail=_2D5F3611-B830-4CEB-9332-1FEF6A9B5B6B 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 - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT8TR/AAoJEDY/T2tCIPW3YnIP/0pY/wfdqiVXbLIlLNxKysVD O9VZ8SFtrfzQ1466Mwlf/taqoigXzQogffGvLHNohScx/iC5SPBLtjdlybhsJNk8 9YKA1UIlXlK34AVZy3D7iu6y32o5su3hV4gaEBApG1qAVPrtx61J9lhEZqo71sj6 5KnEqQUHT+GpqJ2URGjClff6xk9Q771i4Fo/eXoQ+Z51KeiYMlpaXVDXaqGkooL9 WxDA8lT3crTegN12GJuFR74ImChv9830v3VxniicXkmLQmnctsT9FivLk6vP+J8b d23t5rxCTgqJ5aVuumL4+3LAbhDoNARwEwMFcqDOy7VcAB0Cm0xz+IVFCgoOHSNx Hv0WERR/hf9s2QCpy3hamy72crbnFqqvpKdciEaw8lUUGSBGNIvS+DrKEZMi6jqw viwAiQVLZML3/q2iGfFJTQKFoJOA2gVVuk8KbPGLnXA+P1VwcCk+2jCjzrcMchSG rqqjE7Ctpxj1Q1YSyomsQJVCSqAVaV6LRsO7XfC1nMhxb36DkOvUR1UJOgj74ou6 tUDuUBx3guAc4sSdtjxDZ0K1RJNWnlh9MfpcZ0d20oipzzFoSDICfy3KyavjH3fO btJ8fBhWQzyX3iFUpdASZiop4Krr/TcAFl+J8rTIyAL0FjWtuzSQxcg53r4/5nVF zJYTFsVnNRPCerZeN+lk =vIYS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2D5F3611-B830-4CEB-9332-1FEF6A9B5B6B-- From nobody Mon Aug 18 00:30:14 2014 Return-Path: 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 05E7E1A032C for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 00:30:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] 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 o_olHDTHR5GT for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 00:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707E71A031C for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 00:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B4E2CD0E; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:30:09 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HlKhN68o5cRr; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:30:01 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266982CCE4; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:30:01 +0300 (EEST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_00F57579-BAE5-4678-B098-C4F1684D5458"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <9C06776F-7103-440C-9882-007CD7AD5544@standardstrack.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:30:00 +0300 Message-Id: References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> <9C06776F-7103-440C-9882-007CD7AD5544@standardstrack.com> To: Eric Burger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/fdsEWJ55Sd9jjmS8mTuUg2A8fbY Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Andrew Sullivan Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 07:30:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_00F57579-BAE5-4678-B098-C4F1684D5458 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Eric, Andrew, > What we do not say is for whom the proposal is being prepared. I = think this is important. With a hanging =91proposal,=92 it sounds like = the work group is being chartered to think about new and nifty ways of = doing something: a proposal. OK > The second re-emphasizes we are not planning on opening Pandora=92s = IANA Box. :-) > This work is chartered exclusively to create the transition > proposal requested by NTIA to document the IETF=92s=20 > expectations for the transition of the IANA function to a > post-NTIA governance model. Looks good to me. Thanks. Although I=92d probably change s/expectations/approach/, since I=92d = claim that we at the IETF should be responsible for doing this, as = opposed to merely expecting something. Jari --Apple-Mail=_00F57579-BAE5-4678-B098-C4F1684D5458 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJT8at4AAoJEM80gCTQU46qpU8QALyV8X07KuLNzK4TqDDKCeDl 5pojWhhlfVRW5VW9Kc2vJN4iFWIBwdnZYiOf5HZd+AVG+xs0k6et4N+LsUcbrDGt bau56w/CarsiCMVnopUp15Q/tr616ruu0vclIXPUncfw3Vs3lo2OUFcHxpji8ASR suVNp/lcoO1lIRHKbE1ds7L7mDFKz1Dl4OS75OQSzZgliMGlSX9F39m9J2Svrivi I6Nm8KoOHIBkQW0KZJY0ka6p0PT1R41BfJhhnHD3HK5JF0DsfmIRuiYGNQsL8oQT HlbRIuho1Zet7IvsE3dwhG6XzIRu7hHe23jGVwTUIDHnBbjSieBR8dpTQ5DmXJOJ 8/Xar0bu/GdOxWc6mK79xaw/hiJlelDuAsVaqYXt7MDjmTHSnVal+yiItTGxGLIj eyKh0aGqJCd+xpL5aA2+BGmiCtzr9n7Er37E+2ZZfU/lHKqb6sOP1DmkJFvTmF61 mXwLfwjVnWuW8+186nFQny48ouM6abT6Vci9weibs8VHFtkpOIOALwAfYkM5w7N6 kE96GFVGP1qkCNY+oHwenkE+xHLhCJH2hHc+9qJ9cjV75Fsl4YErHgzLamZxwhLJ jrbjQ/nAx4p/GZwszmUISFJ/BkAPTv7siNFprARzekLYwQ5w4Qy9tCqUORU83YUv WSX0pejGbwyY35uTYezF =rlnO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_00F57579-BAE5-4678-B098-C4F1684D5458-- From nobody Mon Aug 18 01:12:16 2014 Return-Path: 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 030FD1A032E for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 01:12:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 4PaPYWZoOcM3 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 01:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.246.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBDB51A032D for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 01:12:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=In-Reply-To:To:References:Date:Subject:Mime-Version:Message-Id:Content-Type:From; bh=Rxk4aLbVt7EoCXrM4wibL9GALrSdcCAFvxr3qHQZ5Eg=; b=HtVH/RK2/DbvTwSyz5OyoDiHwGPrtpUFPgOy/bmi65m8yrzc68J3hHvEEis04SaClhnkffAy4l8tlgQkpyo/mzDSYCm6xdEgp4pi/kUO8xv9HQW0c9dWNqkcTz8oW4/sn8t/wvns6tTot6EGyNk17G3phRmbMwk53vVwr51rYaQ=; Received: from ip68-100-74-115.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.74.115]:54145 helo=[192.168.15.115]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XJI2w-0000cq-G3 for ianaplan@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 01:12:10 -0700 From: Eric Burger Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_20D3104B-E909-46ED-8D13-4CB67E0431D6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 04:12:09 -0400 References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> <9C06776F-7103-440C-9882-007CD7AD5544@standardstrack.com> To: ianaplan@ietf.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/ZD7BJyRp4_2H3sqvPrCleJd9lSI Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 08:12:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_20D3104B-E909-46ED-8D13-4CB67E0431D6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Aug 18, 2014, at 3:30 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Eric, Andrew, [snip] >> This work is chartered exclusively to create the transition >> proposal requested by NTIA to document the IETF=92s=20 >> expectations for the transition of the IANA function to a >> post-NTIA governance model. >=20 > Looks good to me. Thanks. >=20 > Although I=92d probably change s/expectations/approach/, since I=92d = claim that we at the IETF should be responsible for doing this, as = opposed to merely expecting something. Works for me. >=20 > Jari --Apple-Mail=_20D3104B-E909-46ED-8D13-4CB67E0431D6 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 - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT8bVZAAoJEDY/T2tCIPW3+0gQAJorN5uX55hYzgCG3n21VaIQ 2fGKZd8ZbM9LFZweqh2qS44WwDN8mgF9AquN/OaKYRFySyuWAy7Bcs7QuCi9xplL eIc17jbwZpcw8aXGMJoru6UhRgUIBiFR3PpmAHaQ30ekCARasGH26jKOPo3AzPrK mGylvO13P7j+1XJ63X4nLEzD8H77F+mAjdOVoErNH7z/cxYakkkBn5UuRSZxloTx qWfyS6HguNL3TXDx4GoVJ9QRMnLRzTjJh0Q1kFvo/gx5QTXKAj389X4XL7vnafUd e5IMlYAhS6Ky3m2E4qNWsISxv12IbNP+wlVkICP6/DJPjNVYcdkDugi0ao/XBoDZ Rk7nh/R75DXllApDLRXm2MhW/lKKJTKCw/+aVCXjulY6dbeQPvRX7sgsYthKJXJ8 j4zysPBwiXcfugaqcOUUv2W3C4ZJv9h9lKumSva9Av4NcSHGCpmsIQNEQOfx799z xFDanUaDPee5hmd70WBB+70w24npNEH37YruC8DPR4D+t4/HRrl9XLSsgbYwIO6v kuDkXOpUt5srfAm3GPN2Aa4HoIj5xHri76j7/uvQX01x8CQ84TeFy3uwotOOhWk7 Dcatb9LI6gYhwSiChz0PK19rqJhWp0CvZD4VQtC0fCGsiUbwsj3oUqLWwxegoxqJ cWRihRv/Zpl3Hdg85pyi =aFBd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_20D3104B-E909-46ED-8D13-4CB67E0431D6-- From nobody Wed Aug 20 11:31:44 2014 Return-Path: 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 F29B11A06F6 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:31:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.955 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.793] 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 QV1wFcRaRmd3 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774961A0683 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E5B2CC48; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:31:40 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T0nXEsyZm9P4; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:31:36 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6D62CEDD; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:31:36 +0300 (EEST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ED5C1A92-5946-428C-AD5C-868E62F9C646"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:31:34 +0300 Message-Id: <356E14BB-676E-4F5F-A510-3C390E9AB013@piuha.net> References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> To: Andrew Sullivan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Dw5uM79zkqK25ljGmLjKhC_G8gQ Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:31:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_ED5C1A92-5946-428C-AD5C-868E62F9C646 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Since the posting of the charter from Andrew to this list, I have taken = the draft charter for review with the IESG and IAB. A number of changes = have resulted from that review. The review continues. I also have = received a suggestion from Eric Burger, and his comment is noted but not = yet incorporated. But I wanted to provide the current snapshot of the charter to the = working group. My most recent version is below. Area: General Responsible AD: Jari Arkko Chairs: TBD Background =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The IETF stores parameters for protocols it defines in registries. These registries are maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations" section in many RFCs. For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860; over time processes and role definitions have evolved, and have been documented in supplemental agreements. ICANN has historically had a contract with the US Department of Commerce (DoC), undertaken through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In March of 2014, NTIA announced its intention to complete the evolution begun in 1997, meaning that NTIA would not need to renew its contract with ICANN when that contract expires 30 September 2015. NTIA requested a transition proposal be prepared to outline the necessary arrangements. In the case of the IETF, we expect these arrangements to consist largely of the existing well-documented practices. Tasks =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The WG's output is expected to be an IETF consensus document that describes the expected interaction between the IETF and the protocol parameters registries operator. Given that we have a system today that works well for the IETF, minimal change in the oversight of the protocol parameters registries is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when possible. With a view to addressing implications of moving the NTIA out of its current role with respect to IANA on the IETF protocol parameter registry function, the WG will focus on documenting and ensuring the continuation of the current arrangements. The working group will assume the following documents continue to be in effect: - RFC 2850 - RFC 3777 and its updates - RFC 2860 - RFC 6220 - IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf) - ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements (updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/ 2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf) This working group is chartered solely with respect to the planning needed for the transition. Possible improvements outside that scope will be set aside for future consideration. Avoiding alterations in substantive outcomes should be the goal, even if eventual mechanisms required to address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract may require additional documentation or agreements. Should proposals made to the NTIA by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA functions affect the protocol parameter registries or the IETF, the WG will also review and comment on them. The output document of the WG need not be the complete transition proposal regarding the oversight of the protocol parameters registries to be handed to the NTIA. Specifically, if that transition proposal requires documentation of some detailed terms of agreements or other details of procedures that are normally delegated to and handled by the IAB or IAOC, the IAB or IAOC can provide those details as part of the submission; the WG does not need to come to consensus on those parts of the submission. The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Strategy Program to formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA Strategy Program will actively participate in the WG. Milestones =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D January 2015 -- complete protocol parameters registries proposal May 2015 -- review of other transition proposals, if needed Sept 2015 -- close --Apple-Mail=_ED5C1A92-5946-428C-AD5C-868E62F9C646 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJT9OmGAAoJEM80gCTQU46qYFcP/39svRGOgYfUE5W/8sQXQk/S WZ9Kak3LNIr3BJGq077LaHe7v3DvR8pmetbx3WciJYX7ObyB9op1gopIVO4Mp4EN hd8ji8NA67Y+0quCIiJ8NiSIwRCN+EkjbgEmGl7WOqQWwgrL/omoDnyT4ssTXnyg iLIWlTB3q1VeOYQn0TelAMN7vMQL+78TXu7JWS1mM15Ki1uegSsxpteLj4j2iagL PXSWX+9xPAz5CJ6/xK2vUZKpPTbb6rWqwKVTn9HudeP90qJYPOfp/V5KORdvTVOW Tcee7UQ2ljERPvGvjPCdnUY5Ei7NEWYQaSbZPfhBc7wgXo9DFkRQAgIIohH2qAFh hPO8KV7t8SCl+pofdFadK5mUmsgG824I2cF7AKj24ICh10TZ75iX2P91k43mGlFs KchvHyPetspY5+WkrATQftMbcQRcnnydEAEyfePonVN3lpHXBBNOOJ5lAxWZf/1U 5r9NneOBK9mWmK+AnjBzr3O/OTPpcLwjRWCgXIStYswSsAPkfuigqH6gwT3BBwU0 SwuKZJYYiuQflddytV4ZD9rwB2N7wRJ1rs2sWh8XtJ+v9WprSqYsOeenssQ2D55q SB4nwKOJ0KjL+xB3szwcoSOPl1tmyyvEZzbBgOqM3+Rt+XEtZyhrFacG9d2FTAHz 7oIg0zVtPgtU80RxM8+i =drMn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_ED5C1A92-5946-428C-AD5C-868E62F9C646-- From nobody Wed Aug 20 11:39:47 2014 Return-Path: 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 CDD111A0678 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:39:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 6cH_OMQt39A7 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F25261A0466 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7KIddd1025197 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:39:39 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7KIdaVg025168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:39:36 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> <356E14BB-676E-4F5F-A510-3C390E9AB013@piuha.net> In-Reply-To: <356E14BB-676E-4F5F-A510-3C390E9AB013@piuha.net> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:39:34 +0100 Message-ID: <05b801cfbca6$17e35080$47a9f180$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGzz9vmnhWvlT22N2zS8NWMyf13UQHqJhVmnAJapnA= Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20896.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--1.300-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--1.300-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: +c13yJDs900kzrQfI6wWyFfS8E9vfq82Rz7CeLDDbFHKN5/eeLcENhe8 fV0f10P3TWLw2jvbfpxcQYBu5oPw5fUe3cF58v23SDkh6bW+bcc7UrmIzxDooGeJnW+rEpPda9S KzA85xRF4ums8cZOolrnsDuawR3R+TX7PJ/OU3vL+xOhjarOnHmrz/G/ZSbVq+gtHj7OwNO36CZ XLlV1mSW+R/dGaMnKJKkqB6GyOF/dy/xCU0Hv787JVG1Y9pt1o1kiS7tgwUX2rYUy8JFzyqVIBB apt5pmrcI7v3F3gnTYAkv5In49gIbnrea/QXYb3dOnI8WPGJZtXLGtABlf0m8L8HbphQDv4 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/KtVlO77cuK5uZfUx0MJNgZny2bs Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:39:46 -0000 And, obviously, the draft charter is in the datatracker at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/ and IESG review comments/ballots can be seen at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/ballot/ Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko > Sent: 20 August 2014 19:32 > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter > > Since the posting of the charter from Andrew to this list, I have taken the draft > charter for review with the IESG and IAB. A number of changes have resulted > from that review. The review continues. I also have received a suggestion from > Eric Burger, and his comment is noted but not yet incorporated. > > But I wanted to provide the current snapshot of the charter to the working > group. My most recent version is below. From nobody Wed Aug 20 11:40:21 2014 Return-Path: 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 EC0B21A06F6; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:40:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 DxWFpJ8OrDGn; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8B91A0694; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:40:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Adrian Farrel" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p5 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140820184010.10065.93194.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:40:10 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/XRnnP70WeIfa-mKW4tAyHW2dDKw Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, iana-strategy@i1b.org Subject: [Ianaplan] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:40:17 -0000 Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [updated to reflect a discussion with Pete about a paragraph he had written] I probably have no objection to this document going out for community review, but I think it is a shame that the current revision has had no discussion on the mailing list created to discuss the topic despite being very substantially different from the version previously posted there. Given the volume of my comments below, I suspect that reaching some form of stability in the text and getting buy-in from the majority of interested parties would be a good idea before embarking on the one week formal review. --- OLD The IETF stores parameters for protocols it defines in registries. These registries are maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations" section in many RFCs. NEW Regestries of parameter values for use in IETF protocols are stored and maintainted for the IETF by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations" section in many RFCs. COMMENT Just trying to align the words. END OLD For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860; over time processes and role definitions have evolved, and have been documented in supplemental agreements. NEW For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding between the IETF and ICANN codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860. Over time, processes and role definitions have evolved, and have been documented in supplemental agreements. COMMENT Useful to know between who the MoU was formed. Fixed some English. However: what is "the IANA function" referred to here? I think it is more that the maintenance of protocol regestries for the IETF described in the previous paragraph. END OLD ICANN has historically had a contract with the US Department of Commerce (DoC), undertaken through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In March of 2014, NTIA announced its intention to complete the evolution begun in 1997, meaning that NTIA would not need to renew its contract with ICANN when that contract expires 30 September 2015. NTIA requested a transition proposal be prepared to outline the necessary arrangements. In the case of the IETF, we expect these arrangements to consist largely of the existing well-documented practices. COMMENT "Historically" implies in "the past". Using the Present Perfect Continuous ("has had") both indicates history and currency. Having a contract is one thing, saying what it was for may also be valuable ""... to provide the IANA function." "Complete the evolution begun in 1997" may be useful to someone, but not me! Either explain that evolution or don't mention it. I think that it is not necessary to mention it. On the other hand "evolution" and "transition" have no meaning without some context. "would not need to" is very ambiguous! Maybe it can't be avoided, but it isn't good. "A transition proposal" surely contains a proposal for transition, not the existing well-documented practices. Maybe, "In the case of the elements of the IANA function concerning the IETF protocol registries, it is likely that the existing well-documented practices will continue and no or little transition activity will be required." END OLD Tasks ===== The WG’s output is expected to be an IETF consensus document which describes the expected interaction between the IETF and the protocol parameters registries operator. COMMENT We have to recall that IANA maintains registries for other protocols and that ICANN has been adamant that it is allowed to do that. So we need to be clear we are not on that turf. Also, at this stage, we should not be "expecting" output. We should be saying what the WG is chartered to do. NEW Tasks ===== The IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF consensus document that describes the expected interaction between the IETF and the operator of the registries that contain the protocol parameters for the IETF protocols. END OLD Given that we have a system today that works well for the IETF, minimal change in the oversight of the protocol parameters registries is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when possible. With a view to addressing implications of moving the NTIA out of its current role with respect to IANA on the IETF protocol parameter registry function, the WG will focus on documenting and ensuring the continuation of the current arrangements. The working group will assume the following documents continue to be in effect: COMMENT "works well *for*the*IETF*" is likely to raise eyebrows. For whom does it not work well? Why doesn't the IETF care? I think we can just say that it works well. Do we need the passive voice? And maybe we don't need the didactic tone either. The "oversight" that is claimed to exist today is somewhat over- claimed :-( I think part of the trouble is that we might have a different view of what the word means from what the NTIA is thinking. There is: - setting criteria - measuring against criteria - requiring satsifaction of criteria (or enforcing contract) I think that the bit that is transitioning (in the case of protocol registries) is the third of these. We seem to be dodging that, yet that is exactly the bit where we are vulnerable to theft of control. NEW The system in place today for oversight of the IETF protocol registries component of the IANA function works well. The working group will address the implications of moving the NTIA out of its current role with respect to IANA on the IETF protocol parameters registry function in a way that ensures continuation of the current arrangements. The working group will assume the following documents continue to be in effect: END OLD - RFC 2850 (especially section 2(d)) - RFC 3777 and its updates - RFC 2860 - RFC 6220 - IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000 (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf) - ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements (updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf) COMMENT Don't do "especially". Either the document is in effect or it is not. I wonder whether this list of documents should be marked as non- exclusive. END OLD This working group is chartered solely with respect to the planning needed for the transition. COMMENT What does this mean? I thought the working group was chartered to produce a document that described "the interaction between the IETF and the protocol parameters registries operator." END OLD Possible improvements outside that scope will be set aside for future consideration. Avoiding alterations in substantive outcomes should be the goal, even if eventual mechanisms required to address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract may require additional documentation or agreements. COMMENT "alterations in substantive outcomes" means what? Google tranlate renders "Changes in the content of the results" via German and "changes will result in significant" via Swahili. I think you are trying to say that the goal is to leave in place as many elements of existing processes and agreements as is possible. Would it be possible to say what the goal actually is? END OLD Should proposals made to the NTIA by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA functions affect the protocol parameter registries or the IETF, the WG will also review and comment on them. NEW Saying that the WG will comment implies that the WG will produce some form of output. I'm not sure what you have in mind. Saying that other proposal might affect the IETF is a very wide scope! You had previously screwed this tight to say the WG was only working on the protocol parameters part. This text opens it up to the full transition discussion. And you need to tighten "protocol parameters registries" to "IETF protocol parameters registries". END OLD The output document of the WG need not be the complete transition proposal regarding the oversight of the protocol parameters registries to be handed to the NTIA. Specifically, if that transition proposal requires documentation of some detailed terms of agreements or other details of procedures that are normally delegated to and handled by the IAB or IAOC, the IAB or IAOC can provide those details as part of the submission; the WG does not need to come to consensus on those parts of the submission. COMMENT But presumably you intend that the WG does come to consensus on the fact that it doesn't need to come to consensus? Possibly the following would work... NEW Some parts of the transition proposal may need to document detailed terms of agreements or other details of procedures that are normally delegated to and handled by the IAB or IAOC. The working group will not attempt to produce or discuss documentation for these details, but will request the IAB or IAOC to provide them ready for submission as part of the final proposal. END OLD The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Strategy Program to formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA Strategy Program will actively participate in the WG. Milestones ========== January 2015 -- complete protocol parameters registries proposal May 2015 -- review of other transition proposals, if needed Sept 2015 -- close COMMENT I should like to know to whom the WG delivers the complete proposal and in what form. I would also like clarity with regard to how the proposal delivered by the WG is considered complete if additional work from the IAB and IAOC is needed. Does that change the timeline? END From nobody Wed Aug 20 12:35:39 2014 Return-Path: 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 B12401A7023 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:35:37 -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=unavailable 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 8AAm4W87Njcg for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0C221A6FD4 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by gateway2.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5921320696 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 15:35:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 20 Aug 2014 15:35:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=date :subject:from:to:cc:message-id:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mesmtp; bh=q8e4oafxxsNRJnXS7mMnXLdwBqs=; b=UU5k1FX80sXKJozommmHiz2AgeKR d3ONcGvYvhMCI1PtVoM8rnwg/K5yl8KDYkTinK7oc2tBRMnccyEPFS73DEf/V3c+ WZSphc9MRkEY3dvRk2AOyXWD33TJ5dC9Te3JLnKBFB2EWBfo/u9bzWSk8jmrAFk2 clyYn24yYARY3Vk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=q8e4oafxxsNRJnXS7mMnXL dwBqs=; b=VHUovvnvGQxsDz58zZqY0uL3l/VOanDrY1KtAOqmELgOc9NJjMEKYo C75cyzGa1BpBvF7jPc/krb35Ye5z6qvMfDRBdcIORRZiplWvnrPaWPapsEbsSEAt F6KpqXQldVKs+K70Mw9caMoA0pOg8Rrc3VoSCeit2mUSEI6INw0D8= X-Sasl-enc: nJZaJuMmnTz//ZTocrRVJjd5OT7o3HKhh/DjeCpv5E/X 1408563332 Received: from [171.68.18.50] (unknown [171.68.18.50]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 64C176801E7; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 15:35:30 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:35:30 -0700 From: Alissa Cooper To: Adrian Farrel , The IESG Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Iana-strategy] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: (with COMMENT) References: <20140820184010.10065.93194.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140820184010.10065.93194.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/ZQGwzcfINQpaPse1XFxzrQNKCfw Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, iana-strategy@i1b.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [Iana-strategy] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 19:35:37 -0000 Putting in my two cents on Adrian=E2=80=99s comments. On 8/20/14, 11:40 AM, "Adrian Farrel" wrote: >Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for >charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: No Objection > >When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >introductory paragraph, however.) > > > >The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/ > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >COMMENT: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >[updated to reflect a discussion with Pete about a paragraph he had >written] > >I probably have no objection to this document going out for community >review, but I think it is a shame that the current revision has had no >discussion on the mailing list created to discuss the topic despite being >very substantially different from the version previously posted there. >Given the volume of my comments below, I suspect that reaching some form >of stability in the text and getting buy-in from the majority of >interested parties would be a good idea before embarking on the one week >formal review. > >--- >OLD >The IETF stores parameters for protocols it defines in registries. >These registries are maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers >Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations" >section in many RFCs. >NEW >Regestries of parameter values for use in IETF protocols are stored >and maintainted for the IETF by the Internet Assigned Numbers >Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations" >section in many RFCs. >COMMENT >Just trying to align the words. >END WFM, new text is as good as old. > >OLD >For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The >IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of >Understanding codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860; over >time processes and role definitions have evolved, and have been >documented in supplemental agreements. >NEW >For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The >IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of >Understanding between the IETF and ICANN codified in 2000 with the >publication of RFC 2860. Over time, processes and role definitions >have evolved, and have been documented in supplemental agreements. >COMMENT >Useful to know between who the MoU was formed. > >Fixed some English. WFM > >However: what is "the IANA function" referred to here? I think it is >more that the maintenance of protocol regestries for the IETF described >in the previous paragraph. >END Could do s/the IANA function/maintenance of the IETF protocol parameters registries/ > >OLD >ICANN has historically had a contract with the US Department of >Commerce (DoC), undertaken through the National Telecommunications and >Information Administration (NTIA). In March of 2014, NTIA announced >its intention to complete the evolution begun in 1997, meaning that >NTIA would not need to renew its contract with ICANN when that >contract expires 30 September 2015. NTIA requested a transition >proposal be prepared to outline the necessary arrangements. In the >case of the IETF, we expect these arrangements to consist largely of >the existing well-documented practices. >COMMENT >"Historically" implies in "the past". Using the Present Perfect >Continuous ("has had") both indicates history and currency. WFM > >Having a contract is one thing, saying what it was for may also be >valuable ""... to provide the IANA function." WFM > >"Complete the evolution begun in 1997" may be useful to someone, but >not me! Either explain that evolution or don't mention it. I think that >it is not necessary to mention it. On the other hand "evolution" and >"transition" have no meaning without some context. I would say s/complete the evolution begun in 1997/transition out of its current role/ >"would not need to" is very ambiguous! Maybe it can't be avoided, but >it isn't good. The situation itself is ambiguous. If NTIA receives a satisfactory proposal on time, it will not need to renew. But it has reserved the ability to renew if that does not come to pass. So I think this language should stay. > >"A transition proposal" surely contains a proposal for transition, not >the existing well-documented practices. Maybe, "In the case of the >elements of the IANA function concerning the IETF protocol registries, >it is likely that the existing well-documented practices will continue >and no or little transition activity will be required." >END Actually, the ICG is heading in a direction where it will ask for documentation of both existing arrangements and post-transition ones (since it=E2=80=99s hard to evaluate a transition plan without understanding the current arrangements). But the new text you suggest works for me. > >OLD >Tasks >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >The WG=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2s output is expected to be an IETF consensus document which >describes the expected interaction between the IETF and the protocol >parameters registries operator. >COMMENT >We have to recall that IANA maintains registries for other protocols >and that ICANN has been adamant that it is allowed to do that. So we >need to be clear we are not on that turf. > >Also, at this stage, we should not be "expecting" output. We should be >saying what the WG is chartered to do. >NEW >Tasks >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >The IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF consensus >document that describes the expected interaction between the IETF and >the operator of the registries that contain the protocol parameters for >the IETF protocols. >END I don=E2=80=99t think the change at the end of the sentence actually changes the meaning (since there is only one IANA), and it makes the sentence harder to read, but I=E2=80=99m fine with it if people think it helps. > >OLD >Given that we have a system today that works well for the IETF, >minimal change in the oversight of the protocol parameters registries >is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when possible. >With a view to addressing implications of moving the NTIA out of its >current role with respect to IANA on the IETF protocol parameter >registry function, the WG will focus on documenting and ensuring the >continuation of the current arrangements. The >working group will assume the following documents continue to be in >effect: >COMMENT >"works well *for*the*IETF*" is likely to raise eyebrows. For whom >does it not work well? Why doesn't the IETF care? I think we can >just say that it works well. > >Do we need the passive voice? And maybe we don't need the didactic >tone either. > >The "oversight" that is claimed to exist today is somewhat over- >claimed :-( I think part of the trouble is that we might have a >different view of what the word means from what the NTIA is thinking. >There is: >- setting criteria >- measuring against criteria >- requiring satsifaction of criteria (or enforcing contract) >I think that the bit that is transitioning (in the case of protocol >registries) is the third of these. We seem to be dodging that, yet >that is exactly the bit where we are vulnerable to theft of control. >NEW >The system in place today for oversight of the IETF protocol registries >component of the IANA function works well. The working group will >address the implications of moving the NTIA out of its current role with >respect to IANA on the IETF protocol parameters registry function in a >way that ensures continuation of the current arrangements. I don=E2=80=99t really agree with most of the arguments you provide above for changing this text, but I have no problems with the new text itself, save one: s/ensures/focuses on/ The old text left the WG a little more leeway by saying =E2=80=9Cfocus on =E2=80=A6 ensuring=E2=80=9D and I don=E2=80=99t think that should be lost. > >The working group will assume the following documents continue to be in >effect: >END > >OLD >- RFC 2850 (especially section 2(d)) >- RFC 3777 and its updates >- RFC 2860 >- RFC 6220 >- IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000 > (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf) >- ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements > (updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at > =20 >http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement- >Executed.pdf) >COMMENT >Don't do "especially". Either the document is in effect or it is not. Agree > >I wonder whether this list of documents should be marked as non- >exclusive. >END I think that is obvious (we have 7000 other RFCs that remain in effect), but I don=E2=80=99t think it hurts to add it. > >OLD >This working group is chartered solely with respect to the planning >needed for the transition. >COMMENT >What does this mean? I thought the working group was chartered to >produce a document that described "the interaction between the IETF >and the protocol parameters registries operator." >END This is as opposed to making lots of other changes in how the IETF interact with IANA. We could add that at the end of the sentence: =E2=80=9Cand is not meant to cover other topics related to IANA." > >OLD >Possible improvements outside that scope >will be set aside for future consideration. Avoiding alterations in >substantive outcomes should be the goal, even if eventual mechanisms >required to address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract >may require additional documentation or agreements. >COMMENT >"alterations in substantive outcomes" means what? >Google tranlate renders "Changes in the content of the results" via >German and "changes will result in significant" via Swahili. >I think you are trying to say that the goal is to leave in place as >many elements of existing processes and agreements as is possible. >Would it be possible to say what the goal actually is? >END I think the goal is stated earlier in the charter. This is where non-goals are being discussed. If the second sentence above is problematic, it could probably be removed without harm. > >OLD >Should proposals made to the NTIA by other communities regarding the >transition of other IANA functions affect the protocol parameter >registries or the IETF, the WG will also review and comment on them. >NEW >Saying that the WG will comment implies that the WG will produce some >form of output. I'm not sure what you have in mind. Perhaps it should say =E2=80=9Cpossibly comment.=E2=80=9D The WG will have a choice as = to whether to comment or not. And I think it will have the same choice of format as any other WG =E2=80=94 write an RFC, send emails, send a liaison statement. I don=E2=80=99t think the format of comments that may or may not materialize on documents that may or may not materialize needs to be specified in the charter. > >Saying that other proposal might affect the IETF is a very wide scope! >You had previously screwed this tight to say the WG was only working on >the protocol parameters part. This text opens it up to the full >transition discussion. The IETF, and all parties interested in IANA, will be asked to review and comment on the other components of the final transition proposal. Personally, I think there should be a way for IETF participants to do this, and an IETF WG is a good vehicle for that. I don=E2=80=99t think this text opens anything up further than it should be open =E2=80=94 we=E2=80=99re not asking the= WG to author a proposal for numbers or names, we=E2=80=99re saying the WG might want to review or comment on other transition proposal components. > >And you need to tighten "protocol parameters registries" to "IETF >protocol parameters registries". >END Agreed > >OLD >The output document of the WG need not be the complete transition >proposal regarding the oversight of the protocol parameters registries >to be handed to the NTIA. Specifically, if that transition proposal >requires documentation of some detailed terms of agreements or other >details of procedures that are normally delegated to and handled by >the IAB or IAOC, the IAB or IAOC can provide those details as part of >the submission; the WG does not need to come to consensus on those >parts of the submission. >COMMENT >But presumably you intend that the WG does come to consensus on >the fact that it doesn't need to come to consensus? > >Possibly the following would work... >NEW >Some parts of the transition proposal may need to document detailed >terms of agreements or other details of procedures that are normally >delegated to and handled by the IAB or IAOC. The working group will >not attempt to produce or discuss documentation for these details, but >will request the IAB or IAOC to provide them ready for submission as >part of the final proposal. >END WFM > >OLD >The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Strategy Program to >formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA >Strategy Program will actively participate in the WG. > >Milestones >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >January 2015 -- complete protocol parameters registries proposal >May 2015 -- review of other transition proposals, if needed >Sept 2015 -- close >COMMENT >I should like to know to whom the WG delivers the complete proposal >and in what form. I think a shepherd delivers it to the IESG in I-D format, just like every other I-D. > >I would also like clarity with regard to how the proposal delivered >by the WG is considered complete if additional work from the IAB and >IAOC is needed. Does that change the timeline? >END I don=E2=80=99t think it changes the timeline. All of the interested parties should be (and will be I=E2=80=99m sure) working together to make sure that any IAB/IAOC-derived pieces are complete on the same timeline as the proposal produced by the WG. Alissa=20 > > >_______________________________________________ >Iana-strategy mailing list >Iana-strategy@lists.i1b.org >http://lists.i1b.org/listinfo.cgi/iana-strategy-i1b.org From nobody Wed Aug 20 15:02:11 2014 Return-Path: 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 372631A88FE; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 15:01:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 OnJbFj_82TKi; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 15:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AF481A88EA; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 15:01:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7KM1c0b013165; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 23:01:38 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7KM1a5V013153 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Aug 2014 23:01:36 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Alissa Cooper'" , "'The IESG'" References: <20140820184010.10065.93194.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 23:01:33 +0100 Message-ID: <062601cfbcc2$4f67e540$ee37afc0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGyGwGm0DjWsdWPoKwCSHUJZA3ANwIN3WqunATXHVA= Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20896.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--34.534-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--34.534-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: yebcs53SkkCnykMun0J1wvHkpkyUphL9HIOuQjCOKFttGYTovTq6lozR Exx/TfU2yI6e0tM8LOXc9C7eGILGJTcDLA95do+zElgo9H5DnJwHevTGT3uBiIdfRwNmJj4NXvH leYY8KHqf/6smF5+QYIEw6PLhoPZjQRVKTsCComx5TJVlfiK+u7PksiHb4g586i5zlFx/UHSI71 /MbzTrC27IcPmOcFt07J/H4BeTrp0wfXl56Qt5SHPkIViiTNODusAd8fYg+ZD/r2vc2oGG3pMJu BpxSsnJETxGPZxT5sSakIFlOv6dlUa2DXGqwZmfmlaAItiONP2hi9MC6OBOwm3D6f6IpbLI1Kuo 9kfNy4TdVGbW/7eBSl9J5uVF1t/xjPNWW0qddWjf8GJjBXCUiB+Ujfg+7IYfmLvr/eiGOE5YgBY CpHe7VYY9H3l02KkpwDTc/wNgEcNJ7eJnXRCIk9jko+KiQPUGIcCiCHZJTldEv26FkhjLXSSoqS YEcdZDWVreJV7OOrruEBo0Q1mOH1Z4lwN2jxZa6/xAZojbl7digcf+CLQr2x1jWjAZHoEni3NTy It6V8rWHLdqsKvipus9rhPIgW2muvDJZ/TcLtOPmEs8Jfdl0zFcf92WG8u/2Fq6de/aaIbMSUYK yldbl6A4VKStCUqN/e+szn4US2FvH7GZAcw0g/OHbIp2eXtYQ95F2IiVUkQ4YKAM3oRt9qR/aHS q43/o05cplurmDo3RtthNi0SHf+fMbMiPnngnEu5bhrerZYajwKJ7KyNcsMdCktnkea2ia2rVL+ hQbq4NnTCTy0sCcQbZlbFN1KvZR5d+7Y10dxmeAiCmPx4NwFkMvWAuahr8+gD2vYtOFhgqtq5d3 cxkNQP90fJP9eHt Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/p4eYNqOmpp3S3gQzjdQLMUQp-wo Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, iana-strategy@i1b.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [Iana-strategy] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 22:01:59 -0000 Thanks for this, Alissa. > >However: what is "the IANA function" referred to here? I think it is > >more that the maintenance of protocol regestries for the IETF = described > >in the previous paragraph. > >END >=20 > Could do >=20 > s/the IANA function/maintenance of the IETF protocol parameters = registries/ Yes, that works, but it felt like there was a wider intention. > >"Complete the evolution begun in 1997" may be useful to someone, but > >not me! Either explain that evolution or don't mention it. I think = that > >it is not necessary to mention it. On the other hand "evolution" and > >"transition" have no meaning without some context. >=20 > I would say s/complete the evolution begun in 1997/transition out of = its > current role/ I like that. > >"would not need to" is very ambiguous! Maybe it can't be avoided, but > >it isn't good. >=20 > The situation itself is ambiguous. If NTIA receives a satisfactory > proposal on time, it will not need to renew. But it has reserved the > ability to renew if that does not come to pass. So I think this = language > should stay. Well, it probably doesn't change what the WG will do, so keep it. [snip] > >OLD > >Given that we have a system today that works well for the IETF, > >minimal change in the oversight of the protocol parameters registries > >is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when possible. > >With a view to addressing implications of moving the NTIA out of its > >current role with respect to IANA on the IETF protocol parameter > >registry function, the WG will focus on documenting and ensuring the > >continuation of the current arrangements. The > >working group will assume the following documents continue to be in > >effect: > >COMMENT > >"works well *for*the*IETF*" is likely to raise eyebrows. For whom > >does it not work well? Why doesn't the IETF care? I think we can > >just say that it works well. > > > >Do we need the passive voice? And maybe we don't need the didactic > >tone either. > > > >The "oversight" that is claimed to exist today is somewhat over- > >claimed :-( I think part of the trouble is that we might have a > >different view of what the word means from what the NTIA is thinking. > >There is: > >- setting criteria > >- measuring against criteria > >- requiring satsifaction of criteria (or enforcing contract) > >I think that the bit that is transitioning (in the case of protocol > >registries) is the third of these. We seem to be dodging that, yet > >that is exactly the bit where we are vulnerable to theft of control. > >NEW > >The system in place today for oversight of the IETF protocol = registries > >component of the IANA function works well. The working group will > >address the implications of moving the NTIA out of its current role = with > >respect to IANA on the IETF protocol parameters registry function in = a > >way that ensures continuation of the current arrangements. >=20 > I don=E2=80=99t really agree with most of the arguments you provide = above for > changing this text, but I have no problems with the new text itself, = save > one: >=20 > s/ensures/focuses on/ >=20 > The old text left the WG a little more leeway by saying =E2=80=9Cfocus = on =E2=80=A6 > ensuring=E2=80=9D and I don=E2=80=99t think that should be lost. Well, I don't mind you disagreeing if we end up with the text I like :-) [snip] > >OLD > >This working group is chartered solely with respect to the planning > >needed for the transition. > >COMMENT > >What does this mean? I thought the working group was chartered to > >produce a document that described "the interaction between the IETF > >and the protocol parameters registries operator." > >END >=20 > This is as opposed to making lots of other changes in how the IETF > interact with IANA. We could add that at the end of the sentence: = =E2=80=9Cand is > not meant to cover other topics related to IANA." OK, I think I see the purpose of the text, but the words are a problem: = "with respect to the planning needed for the transition" just sounds = lumpy. I'd even go with "with respect to the tasks listed above". Adding your coda would be fine. > >OLD > >Possible improvements outside that scope > >will be set aside for future consideration. Avoiding alterations in > >substantive outcomes should be the goal, even if eventual mechanisms > >required to address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract > >may require additional documentation or agreements. > >COMMENT > >"alterations in substantive outcomes" means what? > >Google tranlate renders "Changes in the content of the results" via > >German and "changes will result in significant" via Swahili. > >I think you are trying to say that the goal is to leave in place as > >many elements of existing processes and agreements as is possible. > >Would it be possible to say what the goal actually is? > >END >=20 > I think the goal is stated earlier in the charter. This is where = non-goals > are being discussed. But the old text is phrased as the statement of a goal. I don't mind this being a statement of goals or non-goals or things that = are out of scope, but I would like it to be meaningful! > If the second sentence above is problematic, it could probably be = removed > without harm. That works for me, but I suspect that it is there because someone had = something they thought should be said. > >OLD > >Should proposals made to the NTIA by other communities regarding the > >transition of other IANA functions affect the protocol parameter > >registries or the IETF, the WG will also review and comment on them. > >NEW > >Saying that the WG will comment implies that the WG will produce some > >form of output. I'm not sure what you have in mind. >=20 > Perhaps it should say =E2=80=9Cpossibly comment.=E2=80=9D The WG will = have a choice as to > whether to comment or not. And I think it will have the same choice of > format as any other WG =E2=80=94 write an RFC, send emails, send a = liaison > statement. I don=E2=80=99t think the format of comments that may or = may not > materialize on documents that may or may not materialize needs to be > specified in the charter. So you agree on "some form of output" and my concern is the consensus = process involved as well as the decision as to which other proposals = will be reviewed and which deserve comments. > >Saying that other proposal might affect the IETF is a very wide = scope! > >You had previously screwed this tight to say the WG was only working = on > >the protocol parameters part. This text opens it up to the full > >transition discussion. >=20 > The IETF, and all parties interested in IANA, will be asked to review = and > comment on the other components of the final transition proposal. > Personally, I think there should be a way for IETF participants to do > this, and an IETF WG is a good vehicle for that. I don=E2=80=99t think = this text > opens anything up further than it should be open =E2=80=94 = we=E2=80=99re not asking the WG > to author a proposal for numbers or names, we=E2=80=99re saying the WG = might want > to review or comment on other transition proposal components. OK, so the scope is intentionally wide, and you think it should be wider = than "affect the IETF" (i.e., all). But, you say "other components of the final transition proposal" and the = text says "proposals made by other communities." There is at least a = time difference there, but also one of filtering. [snip] > >OLD > >The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Strategy Program to > >formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA > >Strategy Program will actively participate in the WG. > > > >Milestones > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > >January 2015 -- complete protocol parameters registries proposal > >May 2015 -- review of other transition proposals, if needed > >Sept 2015 -- close > >COMMENT > >I should like to know to whom the WG delivers the complete proposal > >and in what form. >=20 > I think a shepherd delivers it to the IESG in I-D format, just like = every > other I-D. OK. We normally express these millstones as "Submit foo for IESG review and = publication as an RFC" > >I would also like clarity with regard to how the proposal delivered > >by the WG is considered complete if additional work from the IAB and > >IAOC is needed. Does that change the timeline? > >END >=20 > I don=E2=80=99t think it changes the timeline. All of the interested = parties > should be (and will be I=E2=80=99m sure) working together to make sure = that any > IAB/IAOC-derived pieces are complete on the same timeline as the = proposal > produced by the WG. Okey-dokey. I guess the relevant people will be monitoring and will see = that they need to start to generate text in time. Cheers, Adrian From nobody Thu Aug 21 01:13:27 2014 Return-Path: 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 58D091A0716; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:13:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2=1.674, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 xKxg6cLc0m_7; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE2291A0476; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id w61so8930011wes.25 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:13:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:subject:message-id:from:to:cc:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=byWNZCocOigEYw2FZ6bRZPPsOrnV0NT4aMdETn3CBQc=; b=tWSLI/LYtPHt16otc1deMpyT7woBkfpbAnQPguuNPQQstExKNS0iwZed2eDxxyBX9i j91KNlJyt1W8fatFvBko9WbFc2LnX4UFggGP4JQ69PnLeElX7bfT3NcVAumDzQTDdQvB SmdE8HSuehVaUHNZ88uyIZs0+uykazFm+6MvwScC2Fdd8lOwjiBV4L8ogGWSNoV+2st5 W8tVMFeJ0UAiznmGlMOSJ65MxTtrOmeefU2V4ZDiwBUw6hvuwnaTO8fe2JPDgWSRw+Jd AOColmrQJBFPsNlxKeEwsqk2FWoGRxIrhdpWPdxUyzuYGy431mN4qaiC5J208muLIpeG aL6g== X-Received: by 10.194.173.234 with SMTP id bn10mr66432668wjc.81.1408608791829; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 10.85.3.46 ([41.78.136.100]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y10sm17531693wie.18.2014.08.21.01.12.05 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 01:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:11:19 +0000 Message-ID: From: olivierkouami@gmail.com To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Alissa Cooper' , 'The IESG' MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/d47s0V6pjWrnJKeROfhSbeKCvS8 Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, iana-strategy@i1b.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [Iana-strategy] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:13:16 -0000 R3JlYXQgam9iICEKQ2hlZXJzICEKLU9sw6l2acOpLQoKQWRyaWFuIEZhcnJlbCA8YWRyaWFuQG9s ZGRvZy5jby51az4gYSDDqWNyaXTCoDoKCj5UaGFua3MgZm9yIHRoaXMsIEFsaXNzYS4KPgo+PiA+ SG93ZXZlcjogd2hhdCBpcyAidGhlIElBTkEgZnVuY3Rpb24iIHJlZmVycmVkIHRvIGhlcmU/IEkg dGhpbmsgaXQgaXMKPj4gPm1vcmUgdGhhdCB0aGUgbWFpbnRlbmFuY2Ugb2YgcHJvdG9jb2wgcmVn ZXN0cmllcyBmb3IgdGhlIElFVEYgZGVzY3JpYmVkCj4+ID5pbiB0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMgcGFyYWdy YXBoLgo+PiA+RU5ECj4+IAo+PiBDb3VsZCBkbwo+PiAKPj4gcy90aGUgSUFOQSBmdW5jdGlvbi9t YWludGVuYW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgSUVURiBwcm90b2NvbCBwYXJhbWV0ZXJzIHJlZ2lzdHJpZXMvCj4K PlllcywgdGhhdCB3b3JrcywgYnV0IGl0IGZlbHQgbGlrZSB0aGVyZSB3YXMgYSB3aWRlciBpbnRl bnRpb24uCj4KPj4gPiJDb21wbGV0ZSB0aGUgZXZvbHV0aW9uIGJlZ3VuIGluIDE5OTciIG1heSBi ZSB1c2VmdWwgdG8gc29tZW9uZSwgYnV0Cj4+ID5ub3QgbWUhIEVpdGhlciBleHBsYWluIHRoYXQg ZXZvbHV0aW9uIG9yIGRvbid0IG1lbnRpb24gaXQuIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhhdAo+PiA+aXQgaXMgbm90 IG5lY2Vzc2FyeSB0byBtZW50aW9uIGl0LiBPbiB0aGUgb3RoZXIgaGFuZCAiZXZvbHV0aW9uIiBh bmQKPj4gPiJ0cmFuc2l0aW9uIiBoYXZlIG5vIG1lYW5pbmcgd2l0aG91dCBzb21lIGNvbnRleHQu Cj4+IAo+PiBJIHdvdWxkIHNheSBzL2NvbXBsZXRlIHRoZSBldm9sdXRpb24gYmVndW4gaW4gMTk5 Ny90cmFuc2l0aW9uIG91dCBvZiBpdHMKPj4gY3VycmVudCByb2xlLwo+Cj5JIGxpa2UgdGhhdC4K Pgo+PiA+IndvdWxkIG5vdCBuZWVkIHRvIiBpcyB2ZXJ5IGFtYmlndW91cyEgTWF5YmUgaXQgY2Fu J3QgYmUgYXZvaWRlZCwgYnV0Cj4+ID5pdCBpc24ndCBnb29kLgo+PiAKPj4gVGhlIHNpdHVhdGlv biBpdHNlbGYgaXMgYW1iaWd1b3VzLiBJZiBOVElBIHJlY2VpdmVzIGEgc2F0aXNmYWN0b3J5Cj4+ IHByb3Bvc2FsIG9uIHRpbWUsIGl0IHdpbGwgbm90IG5lZWQgdG8gcmVuZXcuIEJ1dCBpdCBoYXMg cmVzZXJ2ZWQgdGhlCj4+IGFiaWxpdHkgdG8gcmVuZXcgaWYgdGhhdCBkb2VzIG5vdCBjb21lIHRv IHBhc3MuIFNvIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBsYW5ndWFnZQo+PiBzaG91bGQgc3RheS4KPgo+V2VsbCwg aXQgcHJvYmFibHkgZG9lc24ndCBjaGFuZ2Ugd2hhdCB0aGUgV0cgd2lsbCBkbywgc28ga2VlcCBp dC4KPgo+W3NuaXBdCj4KPj4gPk9MRAo+PiA+R2l2ZW4gdGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGEgc3lzdGVtIHRv ZGF5IHRoYXQgd29ya3Mgd2VsbCBmb3IgdGhlIElFVEYsCj4+ID5taW5pbWFsIGNoYW5nZSBpbiB0 aGUgb3ZlcnNpZ2h0IG9mIHRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCBwYXJhbWV0ZXJzIHJlZ2lzdHJpZXMKPj4gPmlz IHByZWZlcnJlZCBpbiBhbGwgY2FzZXMgYW5kIG5vIGNoYW5nZSBpcyBwcmVmZXJyZWQgd2hlbiBw b3NzaWJsZS4KPj4gPldpdGggYSB2aWV3IHRvIGFkZHJlc3NpbmcgaW1wbGljYXRpb25zIG9mIG1v dmluZyB0aGUgTlRJQSBvdXQgb2YgaXRzCj4+ID5jdXJyZW50IHJvbGUgd2l0aCByZXNwZWN0IHRv IElBTkEgb24gdGhlIElFVEYgcHJvdG9jb2wgcGFyYW1ldGVyCj4+ID5yZWdpc3RyeSBmdW5jdGlv biwgdGhlIFdHIHdpbGwgZm9jdXMgb24gZG9jdW1lbnRpbmcgYW5kIGVuc3VyaW5nIHRoZQo+PiA+ Y29udGludWF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IGFycmFuZ2VtZW50cy4gIFRoZQo+PiA+d29ya2lu ZyBncm91cCB3aWxsIGFzc3VtZSB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGRvY3VtZW50cyBjb250aW51ZSB0byBi ZSBpbgo+PiA+ZWZmZWN0Ogo+PiA+Q09NTUVOVAo+PiA+IndvcmtzIHdlbGwgKmZvcip0aGUqSUVU RioiIGlzIGxpa2VseSB0byByYWlzZSBleWVicm93cy4gRm9yIHdob20KPj4gPmRvZXMgaXQgbm90 IHdvcmsgd2VsbD8gV2h5IGRvZXNuJ3QgdGhlIElFVEYgY2FyZT8gSSB0aGluayB3ZSBjYW4KPj4g Pmp1c3Qgc2F5IHRoYXQgaXQgd29ya3Mgd2VsbC4KPj4gPgo+PiA+RG8gd2UgbmVlZCB0aGUgcGFz c2l2ZSB2b2ljZT8gQW5kIG1heWJlIHdlIGRvbid0IG5lZWQgdGhlIGRpZGFjdGljCj4+ID50b25l IGVpdGhlci4KPj4gPgo+PiA+VGhlICJvdmVyc2lnaHQiIHRoYXQgaXMgY2xhaW1lZCB0byBleGlz dCB0b2RheSBpcyBzb21ld2hhdCBvdmVyLQo+PiA+Y2xhaW1lZCA6LSggIEkgdGhpbmsgcGFydCBv ZiB0aGUgdHJvdWJsZSBpcyB0aGF0IHdlIG1pZ2h0IGhhdmUgYQo+PiA+ZGlmZmVyZW50IHZpZXcg b2Ygd2hhdCB0aGUgd29yZCBtZWFucyBmcm9tIHdoYXQgdGhlIE5USUEgaXMgdGhpbmtpbmcuCj4+ ID5UaGVyZSBpczoKPj4gPi0gc2V0dGluZyBjcml0ZXJpYQo+PiA+LSBtZWFzdXJpbmcgYWdhaW5z dCBjcml0ZXJpYQo+PiA+LSByZXF1aXJpbmcgc2F0c2lmYWN0aW9uIG9mIGNyaXRlcmlhIChvciBl bmZvcmNpbmcgY29udHJhY3QpCj4+ID5JIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgdGhlIGJpdCB0aGF0IGlzIHRyYW5z aXRpb25pbmcgKGluIHRoZSBjYXNlIG9mIHByb3RvY29sCj4+ID5yZWdpc3RyaWVzKSBpcyB0aGUg dGhpcmQgb2YgdGhlc2UuIFdlIHNlZW0gdG8gYmUgZG9kZ2luZyB0aGF0LCB5ZXQKPj4gPnRoYXQg aXMgZXhhY3RseSB0aGUgYml0IHdoZXJlIHdlIGFyZSB2dWxuZXJhYmxlIHRvIHRoZWZ0IG9mIGNv bnRyb2wuCj4+ID5ORVcKPj4gPlRoZSBzeXN0ZW0gaW4gcGxhY2UgdG9kYXkgZm9yIG92ZXJzaWdo dCBvZiB0aGUgSUVURiBwcm90b2NvbCByZWdpc3RyaWVzCj4+ID5jb21wb25lbnQgb2YgdGhlIElB TkEgZnVuY3Rpb24gd29ya3Mgd2VsbC4gVGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgd2lsbAo+PiA+YWRkcmVz cyB0aGUgaW1wbGljYXRpb25zIG9mIG1vdmluZyB0aGUgTlRJQSBvdXQgb2YgaXRzIGN1cnJlbnQg cm9sZSB3aXRoCj4+ID5yZXNwZWN0IHRvIElBTkEgb24gdGhlIElFVEYgcHJvdG9jb2wgcGFyYW1l dGVycyByZWdpc3RyeSBmdW5jdGlvbiBpbiBhCj4+ID53YXkgdGhhdCBlbnN1cmVzIGNvbnRpbnVh dGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgY3VycmVudCBhcnJhbmdlbWVudHMuCj4+IAo+PiBJIGRvbuKAmXQgcmVhbGx5 IGFncmVlIHdpdGggbW9zdCBvZiB0aGUgYXJndW1lbnRzIHlvdSBwcm92aWRlIGFib3ZlIGZvcgo+ PiBjaGFuZ2luZyB0aGlzIHRleHQsIGJ1dCBJIGhhdmUgbm8gcHJvYmxlbXMgd2l0aCB0aGUgbmV3 IHRleHQgaXRzZWxmLCBzYXZlCj4+IG9uZToKPj4gCj4+IHMvZW5zdXJlcy9mb2N1c2VzIG9uLwo+ PiAKPj4gVGhlIG9sZCB0ZXh0IGxlZnQgdGhlIFdHIGEgbGl0dGxlIG1vcmUgbGVld2F5IGJ5IHNh eWluZyDigJxmb2N1cyBvbiDigKYKPj4gZW5zdXJpbmfigJ0gYW5kIEkgZG9u4oCZdCB0aGluayB0 aGF0IHNob3VsZCBiZSBsb3N0Lgo+Cj5XZWxsLCBJIGRvbid0IG1pbmQgeW91IGRpc2FncmVlaW5n IGlmIHdlIGVuZCB1cCB3aXRoIHRoZSB0ZXh0IEkgbGlrZSA6LSkKPgo+W3NuaXBdCj4KPj4gPk9M RAo+PiA+VGhpcyB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGlzIGNoYXJ0ZXJlZCBzb2xlbHkgd2l0aCByZXNwZWN0 IHRvIHRoZSBwbGFubmluZwo+PiA+bmVlZGVkIGZvciB0aGUgdHJhbnNpdGlvbi4KPj4gPkNPTU1F TlQKPj4gPldoYXQgZG9lcyB0aGlzIG1lYW4/IEkgdGhvdWdodCB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB3 YXMgY2hhcnRlcmVkIHRvCj4+ID5wcm9kdWNlIGEgZG9jdW1lbnQgdGhhdCBkZXNjcmliZWQgInRo ZSBpbnRlcmFjdGlvbiBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSBJRVRGCj4+ID5hbmQgdGhlIHByb3RvY29sIHBhcmFt ZXRlcnMgcmVnaXN0cmllcyBvcGVyYXRvci4iCj4+ID5FTkQKPj4gCj4+IFRoaXMgaXMgYXMgb3Bw b3NlZCB0byBtYWtpbmcgbG90cyBvZiBvdGhlciBjaGFuZ2VzIGluIGhvdyB0aGUgSUVURgo+PiBp bnRlcmFjdCB3aXRoIElBTkEuIFdlIGNvdWxkIGFkZCB0aGF0IGF0IHRoZSBlbmQgb2YgdGhlIHNl bnRlbmNlOiDigJxhbmQgaXMKPj4gbm90IG1lYW50IHRvIGNvdmVyIG90aGVyIHRvcGljcyByZWxh dGVkIHRvIElBTkEuIgo+Cj5PSywgSSB0aGluayBJIHNlZSB0aGUgcHVycG9zZSBvZiB0aGUgdGV4 dCwgYnV0IHRoZSB3b3JkcyBhcmUgYSBwcm9ibGVtOiAid2l0aCByZXNwZWN0IHRvIHRoZSBwbGFu bmluZyBuZWVkZWQgZm9yIHRoZSB0cmFuc2l0aW9uIiBqdXN0IHNvdW5kcyBsdW1weS4KPiBJJ2Qg ZXZlbiBnbyB3aXRoICJ3aXRoIHJlc3BlY3QgdG8gdGhlIHRhc2tzIGxpc3RlZCBhYm92ZSIuCj4K PkFkZGluZyB5b3VyIGNvZGEgd291bGQgYmUgZmluZS4KPgo+PiA+T0xECj4+ID5Qb3NzaWJsZSBp bXByb3ZlbWVudHMgb3V0c2lkZSB0aGF0IHNjb3BlCj4+ID53aWxsIGJlIHNldCBhc2lkZSBmb3Ig ZnV0dXJlIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24uICBBdm9pZGluZyBhbHRlcmF0aW9ucyBpbgo+PiA+c3Vic3Rh bnRpdmUgb3V0Y29tZXMgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHRoZSBnb2FsLCBldmVuIGlmIGV2ZW50dWFsIG1lY2hh bmlzbXMKPj4gPnJlcXVpcmVkIHRvIGFkZHJlc3MgdGhlIHJlbW92YWwgb2YgdGhlIG92ZXJhcmNo aW5nIE5USUEgY29udHJhY3QKPj4gPm1heSByZXF1aXJlIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgZG9jdW1lbnRhdGlv biBvciBhZ3JlZW1lbnRzLgo+PiA+Q09NTUVOVAo+PiA+ImFsdGVyYXRpb25zIGluIHN1YnN0YW50 aXZlIG91dGNvbWVzIiBtZWFucyB3aGF0Pwo+PiA+R29vZ2xlIHRyYW5sYXRlIHJlbmRlcnMgIkNo YW5nZXMgaW4gdGhlIGNvbnRlbnQgb2YgdGhlIHJlc3VsdHMiIHZpYQo+PiA+R2VybWFuIGFuZCAi Y2hhbmdlcyB3aWxsIHJlc3VsdCBpbiBzaWduaWZpY2FudCIgdmlhIFN3YWhpbGkuCj4+ID5JIHRo aW5rIHlvdSBhcmUgdHJ5aW5nIHRvIHNheSB0aGF0IHRoZSBnb2FsIGlzIHRvIGxlYXZlIGluIHBs YWNlIGFzCj4+ID5tYW55IGVsZW1lbnRzIG9mIGV4aXN0aW5nIHByb2Nlc3NlcyBhbmQgYWdyZWVt ZW50cyBhcyBpcyBwb3NzaWJsZS4KPj4gPldvdWxkIGl0IGJlIHBvc3NpYmxlIHRvIHNheSB3aGF0 IHRoZSBnb2FsIGFjdHVhbGx5IGlzPwo+PiA+RU5ECj4+IAo+PiBJIHRoaW5rIHRoZSBnb2FsIGlz IHN0YXRlZCBlYXJsaWVyIGluIHRoZSBjaGFydGVyLiBUaGlzIGlzIHdoZXJlIG5vbi1nb2Fscwo+ PiBhcmUgYmVpbmcgZGlzY3Vzc2VkLgo+Cj5CdXQgdGhlIG9sZCB0ZXh0IGlzIHBocmFzZWQgYXMg dGhlIHN0YXRlbWVudCBvZiBhIGdvYWwuCj5JIGRvbid0IG1pbmQgdGhpcyBiZWluZyBhIHN0YXRl bWVudCBvZiBnb2FscyBvciBub24tZ29hbHMgb3IgdGhpbmdzIHRoYXQgYXJlIG91dCBvZiBzY29w ZSwgYnV0IEkgd291bGQgbGlrZSBpdCB0byBiZSBtZWFuaW5nZnVsIQo+Cj4+IElmIHRoZSBzZWNv bmQgc2VudGVuY2UgYWJvdmUgaXMgcHJvYmxlbWF0aWMsIGl0IGNvdWxkIHByb2JhYmx5IGJlIHJl bW92ZWQKPj4gd2l0aG91dCBoYXJtLgo+Cj5UaGF0IHdvcmtzIGZvciBtZSwgYnV0IEkgc3VzcGVj dCB0aGF0IGl0IGlzIHRoZXJlIGJlY2F1c2Ugc29tZW9uZSBoYWQgc29tZXRoaW5nIHRoZXkgdGhv dWdodCBzaG91bGQgYmUgc2FpZC4KPgo+PiA+T0xECj4+ID5TaG91bGQgcHJvcG9zYWxzIG1hZGUg dG8gdGhlIE5USUEgYnkgb3RoZXIgY29tbXVuaXRpZXMgcmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoZQo+PiA+dHJhbnNp dGlvbiBvZiBvdGhlciBJQU5BIGZ1bmN0aW9ucyBhZmZlY3QgdGhlIHByb3RvY29sIHBhcmFtZXRl cgo+PiA+cmVnaXN0cmllcyBvciB0aGUgSUVURiwgdGhlIFdHIHdpbGwgYWxzbyByZXZpZXcgYW5k IGNvbW1lbnQgb24gdGhlbS4KPj4gPk5FVwo+PiA+U2F5aW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlIFdHIHdpbGwgY29t bWVudCBpbXBsaWVzIHRoYXQgdGhlIFdHIHdpbGwgcHJvZHVjZSBzb21lCj4+ID5mb3JtIG9mIG91 dHB1dC4gSSdtIG5vdCBzdXJlIHdoYXQgeW91IGhhdmUgaW4gbWluZC4KPj4gCj4+IFBlcmhhcHMg aXQgc2hvdWxkIHNheSDigJxwb3NzaWJseSBjb21tZW50LuKAnSBUaGUgV0cgd2lsbCBoYXZlIGEg Y2hvaWNlIGFzIHRvCj4+IHdoZXRoZXIgdG8gY29tbWVudCBvciBub3QuIEFuZCBJIHRoaW5rIGl0 IHdpbGwgaGF2ZSB0aGUgc2FtZSBjaG9pY2Ugb2YKPj4gZm9ybWF0IGFzIGFueSBvdGhlciBXRyDi gJQgd3JpdGUgYW4gUkZDLCBzZW5kIGVtYWlscywgc2VuZCBhIGxpYWlzb24KPj4gc3RhdGVtZW50 LiBJIGRvbuKAmXQgdGhpbmsgdGhlIGZvcm1hdCBvZiBjb21tZW50cyB0aGF0IG1heSBvciBtYXkg bm90Cj4+IG1hdGVyaWFsaXplIG9uIGRvY3VtZW50cyB0aGF0IG1heSBvciBtYXkgbm90IG1hdGVy aWFsaXplIG5lZWRzIHRvIGJlCj4+IHNwZWNpZmllZCBpbiB0aGUgY2hhcnRlci4KPgo+U28geW91 IGFncmVlIG9uICJzb21lIGZvcm0gb2Ygb3V0cHV0IiBhbmQgbXkgY29uY2VybiBpcyB0aGUgY29u c2Vuc3VzIHByb2Nlc3MgaW52b2x2ZWQgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyB0aGUgZGVjaXNpb24gYXMgdG8gd2hp Y2ggb3RoZXIgcHJvcG9zYWxzIHdpbGwgYmUgcmV2aWV3ZWQgYW5kIHdoaWNoIGRlc2VydmUgY29t bWVudHMuCj4KPj4gPlNheWluZyB0aGF0IG90aGVyIHByb3Bvc2FsIG1pZ2h0IGFmZmVjdCB0aGUg SUVURiBpcyBhIHZlcnkgd2lkZSBzY29wZSEKPj4gPllvdSBoYWQgcHJldmlvdXNseSBzY3Jld2Vk IHRoaXMgdGlnaHQgdG8gc2F5IHRoZSBXRyB3YXMgb25seSB3b3JraW5nIG9uCj4+ID50aGUgcHJv dG9jb2wgcGFyYW1ldGVycyBwYXJ0LiBUaGlzIHRleHQgb3BlbnMgaXQgdXAgdG8gdGhlIGZ1bGwK Pj4gPnRyYW5zaXRpb24gZGlzY3Vzc2lvbi4KPj4gCj4+IFRoZSBJRVRGLCBhbmQgYWxsIHBhcnRp ZXMgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiBJQU5BLCB3aWxsIGJlIGFza2VkIHRvIHJldmlldyBhbmQKPj4gY29t bWVudCBvbiB0aGUgb3RoZXIgY29tcG9uZW50cyBvZiB0aGUgZmluYWwgdHJhbnNpdGlvbiBwcm9w b3NhbC4KPj4gUGVyc29uYWxseSwgSSB0aGluayB0aGVyZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgYSB3YXkgZm9yIElF VEYgcGFydGljaXBhbnRzIHRvIGRvCj4+IHRoaXMsIGFuZCBhbiBJRVRGIFdHIGlzIGEgZ29vZCB2 ZWhpY2xlIGZvciB0aGF0LiBJIGRvbuKAmXQgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyB0ZXh0Cj4+IG9wZW5zIGFueXRo aW5nIHVwIGZ1cnRoZXIgdGhhbiBpdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgb3BlbiDigJQgd2XigJlyZSBub3QgYXNr aW5nIHRoZSBXRwo+PiB0byBhdXRob3IgYSBwcm9wb3NhbCBmb3IgbnVtYmVycyBvciBuYW1lcywg d2XigJlyZSBzYXlpbmcgdGhlIFdHIG1pZ2h0IHdhbnQKPj4gdG8gcmV2aWV3IG9yIGNvbW1lbnQg b24gb3RoZXIgdHJhbnNpdGlvbiBwcm9wb3NhbCBjb21wb25lbnRzLgo+Cj5PSywgc28gdGhlIHNj b3BlIGlzIGludGVudGlvbmFsbHkgd2lkZSwgYW5kIHlvdSB0aGluayBpdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgd2lk ZXIgdGhhbiAiYWZmZWN0IHRoZSBJRVRGIiAoaS5lLiwgYWxsKS4KPkJ1dCwgeW91IHNheSAib3Ro ZXIgY29tcG9uZW50cyBvZiB0aGUgZmluYWwgdHJhbnNpdGlvbiBwcm9wb3NhbCIgYW5kIHRoZSB0 ZXh0IHNheXMgInByb3Bvc2FscyBtYWRlIGJ5IG90aGVyIGNvbW11bml0aWVzLiIgVGhlcmUgaXMg YXQgbGVhc3QgYSB0aW1lIGRpZmZlcmVuY2UgdGhlcmUsIGJ1dCBhbHNvIG9uZSBvZiBmaWx0ZXJp bmcuCj4KPltzbmlwXQo+Cj4+ID5PTEQKPj4gPlRoZSBXRyBzaGFsbCBzZWVrIHRoZSBleHBlcnRp c2Ugb2YgdGhlIElBQiBJQU5BIFN0cmF0ZWd5IFByb2dyYW0gdG8KPj4gPmZvcm11bGF0ZSBpdHMg b3V0cHV0LiBJdCBpcyBleHBlY3RlZCB0aGF0IG1lbWJlcnMgb2YgdGhlIElBQiBJQU5BCj4+ID5T dHJhdGVneSBQcm9ncmFtIHdpbGwgYWN0aXZlbHkgcGFydGljaXBhdGUgaW4gdGhlIFdHLgo+PiA+ Cj4+ID5NaWxlc3RvbmVzCj4+ID49PT09PT09PT09Cj4+ID4KPj4gPkphbnVhcnkgMjAxNSAgLS0g Y29tcGxldGUgcHJvdG9jb2wgcGFyYW1ldGVycyByZWdpc3RyaWVzIHByb3Bvc2FsCj4+ID5NYXkg MjAxNSAtLSByZXZpZXcgb2Ygb3RoZXIgdHJhbnNpdGlvbiBwcm9wb3NhbHMsIGlmIG5lZWRlZAo+ PiA+U2VwdCAyMDE1IC0tIGNsb3NlCj4+ID5DT01NRU5UCj4+ID5JIHNob3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIGtu b3cgdG8gd2hvbSB0aGUgV0cgZGVsaXZlcnMgdGhlIGNvbXBsZXRlIHByb3Bvc2FsCj4+ID5hbmQg aW4gd2hhdCBmb3JtLgo+PiAKPj4gSSB0aGluayBhIHNoZXBoZXJkIGRlbGl2ZXJzIGl0IHRvIHRo ZSBJRVNHIGluIEktRCBmb3JtYXQsIGp1c3QgbGlrZSBldmVyeQo+PiBvdGhlciBJLUQuCj4KPk9L Lgo+V2Ugbm9ybWFsbHkgZXhwcmVzcyB0aGVzZSBtaWxsc3RvbmVzIGFzICJTdWJtaXQgZm9vIGZv ciBJRVNHIHJldmlldyBhbmQgcHVibGljYXRpb24gYXMgYW4gUkZDIgo+Cj4+ID5JIHdvdWxkIGFs c28gbGlrZSBjbGFyaXR5IHdpdGggcmVnYXJkIHRvIGhvdyB0aGUgcHJvcG9zYWwgZGVsaXZlcmVk Cj4+ID5ieSB0aGUgV0cgaXMgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBjb21wbGV0ZSBpZiBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIHdvcmsg ZnJvbSB0aGUgSUFCIGFuZAo+PiA+SUFPQyBpcyBuZWVkZWQuIERvZXMgdGhhdCBjaGFuZ2UgdGhl IHRpbWVsaW5lPwo+PiA+RU5ECj4+IAo+PiBJIGRvbuKAmXQgdGhpbmsgaXQgY2hhbmdlcyB0aGUg dGltZWxpbmUuIEFsbCBvZiB0aGUgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBwYXJ0aWVzCj4+IHNob3VsZCBiZSAoYW5k IHdpbGwgYmUgSeKAmW0gc3VyZSkgd29ya2luZyB0b2dldGhlciB0byBtYWtlIHN1cmUgdGhhdCBh bnkKPj4gSUFCL0lBT0MtZGVyaXZlZCBwaWVjZXMgYXJlIGNvbXBsZXRlIG9uIHRoZSBzYW1lIHRp bWVsaW5lIGFzIHRoZSBwcm9wb3NhbAo+PiBwcm9kdWNlZCBieSB0aGUgV0cuCj4KPk9rZXktZG9r ZXkuIEkgZ3Vlc3MgdGhlIHJlbGV2YW50IHBlb3BsZSB3aWxsIGJlIG1vbml0b3JpbmcgYW5kIHdp bGwgc2VlIHRoYXQgdGhleSBuZWVkIHRvIHN0YXJ0IHRvIGdlbmVyYXRlIHRleHQgaW4gdGltZS4K Pgo+Q2hlZXJzLAo+QWRyaWFuCj4KPl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fCj5JYW5hcGxhbiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKPklhbmFwbGFuQGlldGYub3JnCj5o dHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2lhbmFwbGFuCg== From nobody Thu Aug 21 07:55:48 2014 Return-Path: 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 98BDD1A6EDB; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:55:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] 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 mvxFjtuERhOy; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C841A038F; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65FA2CED5; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:55:33 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7r2v6KakqLXw; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:55:25 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B852CD0E; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:55:24 +0300 (EEST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0ECBD8C1-2F6D-48EC-9688-90339AED11B8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:55:23 +0300 Message-Id: <7718FDAB-7A13-4645-9964-859CC094CD33@piuha.net> References: <20140820184010.10065.93194.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <062601cfbcc2$4f67e540$ee37afc0$@olddog.co.uk> To: Kathleen Moriarty X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Ryw57WxYvoVXGov9F_UY3l5Uixk Cc: The IESG , "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , iana-strategy@i1b.org, Alissa Cooper , ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [Iana-strategy] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:55:42 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0ECBD8C1-2F6D-48EC-9688-90339AED11B8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Thanks Adrian, and Kathleen - That was useful, and I think Alissa=92s = suggested changes work for me. I=92m working on accommodating those = comments and Eric=92s comments into a new clean version, once I have all = comments from the IESG (=3D now). Jari --Apple-Mail=_0ECBD8C1-2F6D-48EC-9688-90339AED11B8 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJT9ghbAAoJEM80gCTQU46qW5YQAKW5v0Z/SUet3/6ZjRrB+WUo BurXWrI9aRU1TxPOaX9yMpeIoO70xSzEMlRGJ15Hi2Jk8Ek2eaVyWwTdjMJfCyJo 4K2KXt9eycxyShJp9yv31qm6Ur0Q6CUFv5ScB+MzMqRgK+69Ziug2vkGqAG7A1jq H2d7HUfR2OnY2n/rizSdBweqGhN9AGUWOraU3cG7JkB6AM7xUG5WZLdsO+d/K9wr dIgkgnpHRdDloH0WzQrjc1bxqa95L+HRN7rwsP0+qcVVweKQ3L0afdLHZRg9C8pA yccx6tKCt/+pMu7w7eg9RRap4NZ/ka9KPYMQusuBfFShcv0HBHVwNidttGmyfo6Q e6Gcc0srj7WBkDUFFkJmTGWf8Sd18dlk3wwjB/Cq0yLKsHfcLxzLo61IaxZ9muun AXEMiXLBrQ9qwHQVuG20p1Cap6v5lPDiWEWEDW8jZ/l5aGgsLanM+HHE5duVi4K+ oma+cQS8MdPY63YuI4fszP7+IKVY6+w4Ad+kcgZX/hhy9+udmBHrZ3C4aXnJKqNk BOlZznD1B5P76pu3p7z7sL8C5zSS5vFqNpkWbXm92JHGglsnapZ4eUHsnhps1FzW R/KInn2rImct/vY7AGkGVjFAHHFE4kqt5XHYE4Nvmx8nSNTl0X6xl+MlbXcxC6th jVD7hNdF0y0UBTJcHcl1 =expB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_0ECBD8C1-2F6D-48EC-9688-90339AED11B8-- From nobody Thu Aug 21 10:33:02 2014 Return-Path: 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 E12731A0489 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:32:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.955 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.793] 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 8NznkGfqRAd3 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F011A047D for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253462CED7; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:32:57 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vzJt5ZAFbAsE; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:32:53 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9AC2CD0E; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:32:53 +0300 (EEST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D35E5F14-7AF5-4BC0-9856-B57414CACDE7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <05b801cfbca6$17e35080$47a9f180$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:32:51 +0300 Message-Id: <122F8979-09B2-4021-8176-F60460466871@piuha.net> References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> <356E14BB-676E-4F5F-A510-3C390E9AB013@piuha.net> <05b801cfbca6$17e35080$47a9f180$@olddog.co.uk> To: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/plLH8wlqeCakKZjtjTX7pt7pai8 Cc: Eric Burger Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:33:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D35E5F14-7AF5-4BC0-9856-B57414CACDE7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 We=92ve had a discussion in the IESG about the charter, including me, = Alissa, and Adrian working to edit Adrian=92s suggestions in. The IESG = has decided to send the charter to IETF-wide and external review. Here=92s the charter text: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/ Diff to the previous version that I sent you: = http://arkko.com/ietf/ianaplan/ianaplanwg-v06-from-5.diff.html Diff to the initial version that Andrew sent you: = http://arkko.com/ietf/ianaplan/ianaplanwg-v06-from-0.diff.html Comments are appreciated, as always. Eric: they changes impacted the text that you originally commented on. = Does the new text work better for you? Jari --Apple-Mail=_D35E5F14-7AF5-4BC0-9856-B57414CACDE7 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJT9i1DAAoJEM80gCTQU46qmEEQALMN+kpzzVDiurrxxpBtxPiS YO8adbrlcV/w4FA3KSQURZs+O1mb7bIX3Qe4lHPDOK/480G59PEWsm+TvUVWqnhW 99E2KafA/eO7zhqU0hukrBQ2Bywa+6X13eECIIVwEA5idqnOKJDvXn4sUdEr8T3X ke+aM1h/zMTIx8X5nGi/zvrU26TNJ1oLdw7iu1AUHOaBvuuRPnRISWMSlZgqvpBh ihyi3fqGAbLKrkH7hdzyhf5+UBqkthgoywcR4uMm47ij+fAEVYAabzZSuBFvzbAc myA3Yc4hlrpNWGY3ep8EBtSLXM4hvXk+DWIA0ShzqU9Mj/E9JiX4DemVIYMGWRmB dyE2muLtincv2NmyCzRf8g4liA4lATTu+ycQS0iM8y2/OvFvjxUTZlmfpJzIktaP XI8QWuUGdVYWNdPHuLaW34FNfDixSupVwms9jC62gw5ULQcYoGN+al8d4i0y3P4F VzQ37P8hRgZCw8eusqTaWL8ZTGJCk4Bd/Za1DcxMqWllxMW1PEC5+GKvarAM1Vwq CN4f1iS7bZDVt/j3ijCceC/+Pq/pB/O2We5OFQFSSmn8NNvJvDt+YEPiQE4qq3Op 82yGbAiN37Mb/2ZAgWiEdLXCtCFycNQsveRmXi3FSgo+i7RW0wN3ZRmsBs0cr/jR eVzY3duPiIk0BCZa8EmR =1j8n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D35E5F14-7AF5-4BC0-9856-B57414CACDE7-- From nobody Thu Aug 21 11:52:52 2014 Return-Path: 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 793E71A8729 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:52:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.792 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 wZqexBEgfpTo for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.246.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 714DC1A8714 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:52:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=V/ldU/xm5iF+/mCz6cg+o7s0M7HXz7llAPKaood5zx8=; b=KM792/s8Xl2+aHPtKaISTl0xqILoWYGE63bJON1ib41nA0Fg7fdUwFK+EABiYhjif5DRX6Z2rjqFkJ2kQ5DYRVvpf7E+8AcYljsib225gVF+24s1rV1ujI0Zt26q/pJp3/PlYkwaJkD85oB4AgW5zcjo4YJnWsyCslgmvl5HPV4=; Received: from [141.161.20.150] (port=52552) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XKXTK-0001X5-4g; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:52:33 -0700 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1AE8D7D2-D12A-492A-A86B-2D6296B4B943"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Eric Burger In-Reply-To: <122F8979-09B2-4021-8176-F60460466871@piuha.net> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:52:27 -0400 Message-Id: <4B8730F2-2637-47F0-8161-7E7194D0ACC4@standardstrack.com> References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> <356E14BB-676E-4F5F-A510-3C390E9AB013@piuha.net> <05b801cfbca6$17e35080$47a9f180$@olddog.co.uk> <122F8979-09B2-4021-8176-F60460466871@piuha.net> To: Arkko Jari X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/9HD7YhgMYQ2MMm64ugz7LFz8bgE Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:52:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1AE8D7D2-D12A-492A-A86B-2D6296B4B943 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Much better. To prove I really read the charter, the only change I would = request, which is purely editorial, is to move one comma in the second = paragraph. This is purely a grammar nit and does not change the meaning = or intent of the charter. Edited text: For a number of years, maintenance of the IETF protocol parameters registries has been provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding between the IETF and ICANN, codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860. Over time, ^^^ [after ICANN] processes and role definitions have evolved and have been documented ^^^ [not after evolved] in supplemental agreements. Real, active voice English would have us say: For a number of years, the Internet Corporation for Assinged Names and = Numbers (ICANN) has provided maintenance of the IETF protocol parameters = registries. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the IETF and = ICANN, codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860, formalized the = relationship between the IETF and the IANA. Over time, processes and = role definitions have evolved and have been documented in supplemental = agreements. On Aug 21, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > We=92ve had a discussion in the IESG about the charter, including me, = Alissa, and Adrian working to edit Adrian=92s suggestions in. The IESG = has decided to send the charter to IETF-wide and external review. >=20 > Here=92s the charter text: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/ > Diff to the previous version that I sent you: = http://arkko.com/ietf/ianaplan/ianaplanwg-v06-from-5.diff.html > Diff to the initial version that Andrew sent you: = http://arkko.com/ietf/ianaplan/ianaplanwg-v06-from-0.diff.html >=20 > Comments are appreciated, as always. >=20 > Eric: they changes impacted the text that you originally commented on. = Does the new text work better for you? >=20 > Jari >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan --Apple-Mail=_1AE8D7D2-D12A-492A-A86B-2D6296B4B943 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 - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT9j/rAAoJEDY/T2tCIPW35JcP/1LLXwZHYutD4TfaK7BDnPDJ BYh4BHYvO+AuI/FPo7wy4N6lnq9Zce4RpHJ+oJJk+caUm74M7FZYDy7PoK0LxdEG BjNr5IDZApavpe5xhjt/g0zAZoqnIMBEZnIRUhvUabZseF3A7T9gGorXCutEvIyx zgGUBA0ah6nVgph7xNegdt9x6IePu8rOC0MYFkhpmvU81YnohnskybpuKt812Ncn dlBlgIHlhN7Ca/8Hmb3FMY1U3k0/h1E1PZo3r0Y7avliffepTvBXwPBRbwZE7kDu KcmUET3VIPIYAE/Ok2gt8QJE6+n1/H3qfnQnI8s2FoOCfcU301kjRaUOqgY9k2pN hmtiRCIAPmlbNrVIDxmJq9K1WfFSqGjBf544yP4es9OMpto00150zkCx2+ZITq1r PPYvd3lXzGcOePWFoKCUT36G0uFeEOLXlKO+ooieoVrqiMvBZ5gFLiniD148Z56S gJu/f2rjeFx3zXZQG/UiYXBcSsB0uJ6iTEHmkJbGFOlaSdsiwPPZ6veDrwYPfZ3/ pNhNjqIv+Z5qv/u5CFUZfM1+mxNJO57uS7CrVfTTvWCkDizfo54mske4kWH5p0bg j3VpI1rqnwsXkSIiC6rIrz4iqQk6vGD+rWdwbDsTP5l2n/fsme01ysrQ7uATI9m5 kT4Vkmac+ul7bh7nZWgT =X3sl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1AE8D7D2-D12A-492A-A86B-2D6296B4B943-- From nobody Thu Aug 21 13:17:58 2014 Return-Path: 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 E7E7E1A06D3 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:17:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 WLfjW_5SLsVw for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trammell.ch (trammell1.nine.ch [5.148.172.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296521A065F for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2::2] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2::2]) by trammell.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E09C61A05C0; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:17:24 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A34D1BA7-0D30-424C-B7DB-8CF1D4949673"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: <122F8979-09B2-4021-8176-F60460466871@piuha.net> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:17:24 +0200 Message-Id: <4CF30D51-B2C4-45D2-A08B-E72E73469CA3@trammell.ch> References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> <356E14BB-676E-4F5F-A510-3C390E9AB013@piuha.net> <05b801cfbca6$17e35080$47a9f180$@olddog.co.uk> <122F8979-09B2-4021-8176-F60460466871@piuha.net> To: Jari Arkko X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/c5UZpLac9iQpn-B3su8oyg_o91s Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Eric Burger Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:17:58 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A34D1BA7-0D30-424C-B7DB-8CF1D4949673 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 hi Jari, all, Tiny nit: s/IAB IANA Strategy Program/IAB IANA Evolution Program/g in the final = paragraph. Otherwise, this looks good to me, with the caveat that one does sort of = have to understand how the ICG is structured in order to completely = understand the charter; e.g. "other communities" sort of pop up toward = the end of the tasks section without explanation. But since (I hope) = everyone in the room will presumably be following developments in the = wider process, I don't think this is a problem that needs fixing. Cheers, Brian On 21 Aug 2014, at 19:32, Jari Arkko wrote: > We=92ve had a discussion in the IESG about the charter, including me, = Alissa, and Adrian working to edit Adrian=92s suggestions in. The IESG = has decided to send the charter to IETF-wide and external review. >=20 > Here=92s the charter text: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/ > Diff to the previous version that I sent you: = http://arkko.com/ietf/ianaplan/ianaplanwg-v06-from-5.diff.html > Diff to the initial version that Andrew sent you: = http://arkko.com/ietf/ianaplan/ianaplanwg-v06-from-0.diff.html >=20 > Comments are appreciated, as always. >=20 > Eric: they changes impacted the text that you originally commented on. = Does the new text work better for you? >=20 > Jari >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan --Apple-Mail=_A34D1BA7-0D30-424C-B7DB-8CF1D4949673 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 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJT9lPUAAoJENt3nsOmbNJc1AEH+wdbG4vaCXUvIZuKO6Gxx9y8 ZZcuz2dwMeq3exHGyCKgkNhQJY4q2oDnpGlbeG59GjyS6GMwjq84+yB2lUw+BZ1Z k/6ZrbhyIwpZIE+c4nJHX+ayCNEiFnUd1xaVrNzOIZ3Noq0erIw+iUliBuOu4YZU s1izoWhE2J8aPBqqlnvPFShV/D3l5rjSN5xEa4c2aMbcGsWcyzd23YdwOYlCP2zg N4jCRcMbq/vUOH66YjK/YQn77P/ZQfM05Fhr89gETXBUhREOzfNFMOIf0ZHg4wNg JlhZyCSIyPRfvezHeNbNqbh5nxnbIsc7WHz7Ws0rq8gf6RDZI6u7Fi2kaDZeuBU= =Ovz4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_A34D1BA7-0D30-424C-B7DB-8CF1D4949673-- From nobody Thu Aug 21 13:51:22 2014 Return-Path: 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 292E41A8A05 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:51:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.792 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 yq4jvLwjBTv5 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.246.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2ABE11A70E1 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=In-Reply-To:To:References:Date:Subject:Mime-Version:Message-Id:Content-Type:From; bh=QYg+s5LSi/9nmEqxejWMjyiOt5XxS7BaLHD0pXKhqn0=; b=PGsweVizCoGiKNJRu7NDqd+aurKD4nXQqLBSgg37y6YY0+JDAfJoEZFmggUyKt5Agjtrdg9G7umpYfeOxYV6lDC4bk29latCIn2t++IVXgVbt2IJ7O8kCx1ykrp/bLITJCR3TfeN1kp8Kdv+kX04LJsi/Q0eDm1i4Ggi5zwLieY=; Received: from ip68-100-74-115.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.74.115]:53160 helo=[192.168.15.115]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XKZKC-0002Zr-G5 for ianaplan@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:51:17 -0700 From: Eric Burger Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_19BA1A42-E5E4-42F2-A6C5-004D84B02324"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Message-Id: <87CFCB18-FC4F-4B7F-B313-647818E9F191@standardstrack.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:51:12 -0400 References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> <356E14BB-676E-4F5F-A510-3C390E9AB013@piuha.net> <05b801cfbca6$17e35080$47a9f180$@olddog.co.uk> <122F8979-09B2-4021-8176-F60460466871@piuha.net> <4CF30D51-B2C4-45D2-A08B-E72E73469CA3@trammell.ch> To: ianaplan@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4CF30D51-B2C4-45D2-A08B-E72E73469CA3@trammell.ch> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/q8mnfbl1lzn1QOyia_X8RbKQENc Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:51:21 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_19BA1A42-E5E4-42F2-A6C5-004D84B02324 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I think leaving this with a naked =93other communities=94 is fine. = Otherwise we will run down a rathole of who those other communities are = and, as well, we are likely to forget one that will be upset we forgot = to enumerate them. On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Brian Trammell wrote: > hi Jari, all, >=20 > Tiny nit: >=20 > s/IAB IANA Strategy Program/IAB IANA Evolution Program/g in the final = paragraph. >=20 > Otherwise, this looks good to me, with the caveat that one does sort = of have to understand how the ICG is structured in order to completely = understand the charter; e.g. "other communities" sort of pop up toward = the end of the tasks section without explanation. But since (I hope) = everyone in the room will presumably be following developments in the = wider process, I don't think this is a problem that needs fixing. [snip] --Apple-Mail=_19BA1A42-E5E4-42F2-A6C5-004D84B02324 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 - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT9lvAAAoJEDY/T2tCIPW3qmQQAJUgjNc7U99yLytiQsAllYet HaqNqetyY6GHoCJ8CRAPBhmBHku6CpXxqkwzei4LgvQSWzQuZqc2vEGraQaWxusF mQdmtgeWSO0d3p6n6fCWiu5pzwaxCnnhGau2KPPuIHx21H8XtdPVfXhmr1MlSEFd B9uQyIMvckEpfxXz7vptIoFiorV6CbCN8wu0CsINNAfr/6lSQHjPb+wC3aetbHfr cS82UgoBfLZknOYsTM1EqjFdQJ9+1RJygDhDBuDB879GIh5FJdMrQXETjZbPOPZQ PzY79I9BM5bvWRXLJBUlh37YK/IdmD4XpMWqs03SDl2uFUJE7SUtbzv1+iHzBLdH xTEcPXyWBzXPixBoq/lCUgtcD8YjK5mDfWdQxsyUanTpNihaar1p7aNOeqzL9WY8 +SurcqNUSsB2d7HXD/YOOBT0jYuIrTd7qaJIcMECSwD9r+BPDneHZYj8SVeorIIm d9Z+2oXjbsH0IBWU26VDo02XInKRCnvmTa4NhhHo/AnpZx+BP1WuiKQTm+DOUuEA vHhYSc6m5NN8FMFiYJO0oodFwytweJZ2MO+s2yxO4tBSv1kXdWRZfzkZ1ZlHuOQ+ u1oTNYJjCaDbsETDXIyLNmsDzjKkH+TAL/Bb5vWR6ftnjKUKsni1l9Ff0fKtQZsw ieJXLXiWxpKuV541IroQ =tKr9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_19BA1A42-E5E4-42F2-A6C5-004D84B02324-- From nobody Thu Aug 21 14:13:07 2014 Return-Path: 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 B749F1A8A08 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:13:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 eKFITxZLXHzC for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x22c.google.com (mail-qg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC89B1A6FAB for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id e89so9424468qgf.17 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:13:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=hnKa2Twt8TIFjahKAm1mnkalnmiOY4J454Zs3qc+AU8=; b=JJ0GR3YxB6/VeK6AhpoqXSzJGM5pUbOYMDrdDKA2qBvIdyFj1IhJHb4tFUerX87Tpw RRJrjOr675oV7/VeL7Ht16G/knTr94AkrVPtInirgzvCVWMNgsN6TWAEfTJJKXyVui1m plaJdtWZRbObEFm1XT5DwgnxX7b9eeZtZY0Pqnd/5bkooN+0rd3D5achZywi4xymUtNB gKSgYU32hDSwXe3YHIYdcYYNxk6TvtLDwadkRKlwGm2YEVFXNDC8HFh/ujDukHLSy24E 64BltvTOxYa1q9AEwXKdXkXFG6y+R04wEJ4NenG86vYTgln66+Y1GXFmMhf33gJx5nS6 S1xg== X-Received: by 10.229.59.67 with SMTP id k3mr2028362qch.26.1408655583111; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.31] (c-24-63-89-87.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.63.89.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b99sm30718136qga.5.2014.08.21.14.13.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Suzanne Woolf In-Reply-To: <87CFCB18-FC4F-4B7F-B313-647818E9F191@standardstrack.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:13:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> <356E14BB-676E-4F5F-A510-3C390E9AB013@piuha.net> <05b801cfbca6$17e35080$47a9f180$@olddog.co.uk> <122F8979-09B2-4021-8176-F60460466871@piuha.net> <4CF30D51-B2C4-45D2-A08B-E72E73469CA3@trammell.ch> <87CFCB18-FC4F-4B7F-B313-647818E9F191@standardstrack.com> To: Eric Burger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/YVDqcSaarQ-QR-fa2dhnFwHPc1c Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:13:06 -0000 This is a rathole either way, so the IETF should do what suits the IETF. = I think =93other communities=94 is right. On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Eric Burger = wrote: > I think leaving this with a naked =93other communities=94 is fine. = Otherwise we will run down a rathole of who those other communities are = and, as well, we are likely to forget one that will be upset we forgot = to enumerate them. >=20 >=20 > On Aug 21, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Brian Trammell wrote: >=20 >> hi Jari, all, >>=20 >> Tiny nit: >>=20 >> s/IAB IANA Strategy Program/IAB IANA Evolution Program/g in the final = paragraph. >>=20 >> Otherwise, this looks good to me, with the caveat that one does sort = of have to understand how the ICG is structured in order to completely = understand the charter; e.g. "other communities" sort of pop up toward = the end of the tasks section without explanation. But since (I hope) = everyone in the room will presumably be following developments in the = wider process, I don't think this is a problem that needs fixing. > [snip] > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan From nobody Thu Aug 21 14:19:24 2014 Return-Path: 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 2A62E1A0AD1 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:19:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 HYTbvrLhXokD for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C821F1A0ACA for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7LLJGYq015779; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:19:16 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7LLJFne015764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:19:15 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Jari Arkko'" References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> <356E14BB-676E-4F5F-A510-3C390E9AB013@piuha.net> <05b801cfbca6$17e35080$47a9f180$@olddog.co.uk> <122F8979-09B2-4021-8176-F60460466871@piuha.net> In-Reply-To: <122F8979-09B2-4021-8176-F60460466871@piuha.net> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:19:10 +0100 Message-ID: <093401cfbd85$8d514f90$a7f3eeb0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGzz9vmnhWvlT22N2zS8NWMyf13UQHqJhVmAeBn4rcB50cyfpvl226Q Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20898.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.694-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--6.694-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: cgbqQT5W8hckzrQfI6wWyOYAh37ZsBDCGSqdEmeD/nXV3/8nEv1TVsLm p4jPUF8tRFsqph676uCNVoCXuMjrXXz5lEEBuvacV9LwT29+rzYqqhKuUzs+H2rhyhOS2sZfWzz Pr0qaPmKBSFPB28QbgV5vbElLXtAv2ZTDxir5KHOho/idI0s5i3JrB0Cu3DDnmyiLZetSf8nJ4y 0wP1A6AKTygpcqFEs8jaPj0W1qn0TGVuWouVipciy8FQfoqSeukUBh9HtkXguWYFXGCxKQNUrpH V8MTic4xZSp8y8fXCPVedwpvSQcwVcWw/+p80hT0y6K/qzWFWxqHGmSRpA0g7Cf48ZV53d3afcR 7jPQH1IinlGzjbYHk3tWcHWSNHdfOOjaqoykIZw= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/SJYdKv5iHH9Jatt7v_MRCfpRVwk Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:19:22 -0000 Jari, Thanks for the work with the chisel. The end result looks good to me. Will be happy to hear if others think more changes (or reversions) are needed. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko > Sent: 21 August 2014 18:33 > To: ianaplan@ietf.org > Cc: Eric Burger > Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter > > We've had a discussion in the IESG about the charter, including me, Alissa, and > Adrian working to edit Adrian's suggestions in. The IESG has decided to send the > charter to IETF-wide and external review. > > Here's the charter text: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/ > Diff to the previous version that I sent you: > http://arkko.com/ietf/ianaplan/ianaplanwg-v06-from-5.diff.html > Diff to the initial version that Andrew sent you: > http://arkko.com/ietf/ianaplan/ianaplanwg-v06-from-0.diff.html > > Comments are appreciated, as always. > > Eric: they changes impacted the text that you originally commented on. Does the > new text work better for you? > > Jari From nobody Thu Aug 21 21:46:55 2014 Return-Path: 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 53DDE1A0009 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:46:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] 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 rnFIs80X182A for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBF51A0005 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C902CC95; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:46:49 +0300 (EEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NCRlxv3gfb9F; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:46:45 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789AF2CC48; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:46:45 +0300 (EEST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_60A1AE43-9A40-4612-A190-25E5E9833052"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <4CF30D51-B2C4-45D2-A08B-E72E73469CA3@trammell.ch> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:46:44 +0300 Message-Id: <8866B0D0-BD8B-484D-83E6-0CF7619CBC34@piuha.net> References: <20140815175942.GB50946@mx1.yitter.info> <356E14BB-676E-4F5F-A510-3C390E9AB013@piuha.net> <05b801cfbca6$17e35080$47a9f180$@olddog.co.uk> <122F8979-09B2-4021-8176-F60460466871@piuha.net> <4CF30D51-B2C4-45D2-A08B-E72E73469CA3@trammell.ch> To: Brian Trammell X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/d6M_4vImTBgqg4oYrHKFUGSzA8Q Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Eric Burger Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Revised proposal for charter X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 04:46:54 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_60A1AE43-9A40-4612-A190-25E5E9833052 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Yes, agreed. Thanks. Jari On 21 Aug 2014, at 23:17, Brian Trammell wrote: > hi Jari, all, >=20 > Tiny nit: >=20 > s/IAB IANA Strategy Program/IAB IANA Evolution Program/g in the final = paragraph. >=20 > Otherwise, this looks good to me, with the caveat that one does sort = of have to understand how the ICG is structured in order to completely = understand the charter; e.g. "other communities" sort of pop up toward = the end of the tasks section without explanation. But since (I hope) = everyone in the room will presumably be following developments in the = wider process, I don't think this is a problem that needs fixing. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Brian >=20 > On 21 Aug 2014, at 19:32, Jari Arkko wrote: >=20 >> We=92ve had a discussion in the IESG about the charter, including me, = Alissa, and Adrian working to edit Adrian=92s suggestions in. The IESG = has decided to send the charter to IETF-wide and external review. >>=20 >> Here=92s the charter text: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ianaplan/ >> Diff to the previous version that I sent you: = http://arkko.com/ietf/ianaplan/ianaplanwg-v06-from-5.diff.html >> Diff to the initial version that Andrew sent you: = http://arkko.com/ietf/ianaplan/ianaplanwg-v06-from-0.diff.html >>=20 >> Comments are appreciated, as always. >>=20 >> Eric: they changes impacted the text that you originally commented = on. Does the new text work better for you? >>=20 >> Jari >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Ianaplan mailing list >> Ianaplan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan --Apple-Mail=_60A1AE43-9A40-4612-A190-25E5E9833052 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 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJT9ss0AAoJEM80gCTQU46q0NsP/jRnkiswbALU+0Sea9EQ/AgO IZ/IyjHEU979LJMl2MZ6pM4NyGFHCdQ6/G0/2ijNtFqhQ9C7ZsQdsWq2CSfIxYKI 2zfHyUhoUCEw9YbNxlk/c5LTZC6FOJgTC8a6beD3nApXIX3EibjbuGd8NW1S/STr COSyWYHe8zAPuOMjVtIGXPl26R4F1py3GAJGhqxoxCkNm63acyUJBjS3LStodiNc v2z8ZrBqvYnhOkhuOaIheXqE0eXPfmYVLU0Y2jEMZ3mIkF+ZD/DBiOdx5uBRVxjT gVnQGM1pMc10/dOytU2y4bnMnkKH52fFYTc4jDsPm++f4zjDU/WBLduXY2//RoEb 7n4G5UUngMBIiy/AfCoIcpPHt0qsy6ezTZVe79ih3TXpAd7jCPSC+pv8cubVC4WH IBH593w6NQzRnbG6JzVMngu1f/2B4BdeWe2oT+zSBKqEwWl7p+3IS35XK2R29xMU 9irBSg/L0Hz4gzSYftPv3qAJUxCMLmba9YlrwFJBOyWbn4jACHMOwwV/OoUVVPb/ O4ypMKbc5JSFziOyJAjisCuzoaz/v5uVqhLpsGklnGB6f/cs/XyWLzoMSiMk2SXS TklehgC1hu/WeCmZz2kXHRMxpJRI+ASgOnpH1NHKCAm7KEFVWVjR1I4T2seByYZ1 23///cU9rhG3z2btXbFU =eWdo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_60A1AE43-9A40-4612-A190-25E5E9833052-- From nobody Fri Aug 22 07:30:37 2014 Return-Path: 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 EF6541A0303 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:30:34 -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 Fe4LyyNTYfpW for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43D701A041D for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by gateway2.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E08D207BA for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:30:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=date :subject:from:to:cc:message-id:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=wF7q1//+9tli9NmNwQs3/6e 0XmA=; b=yCOmQwxqrz/vY8k97ckfBWUtEUnLET1LR3QQHDgOYU5XUl6HzUsxSC8 TkCd1J9eTkeNjozVl0b5sx8tQsHzJEGRRaoklw3yvx/xid5Owy3HkRknAERsxbX8 256zdWpItrwC8XWiJ1Md9beYsPbWPlOs1uqqqZgglROUf3yG6WNE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=wF7q1//+9tli9NmNwQs3/6e0XmA=; b=UMIi8hT7np3HhuHQzB6HQwM6jz8k jPDZSY+u5PaMRlVt/0rn1ayvA+IM/29Di5ohYxG4++EXRr3j2F20hgCjczM+TQMg LTs8qBK/ysGL3T/bHhhsmr29c2g+HV6O98rRPJfIzw3fL/b+Nk70Wm51/l2cAfNJ ezkIRicMT8FSgSg= X-Sasl-enc: gSCCUIHnduikLrAF0mGxmvam7sXkKaixrA96WWbNzPrF 1408717830 Received: from [10.21.77.130] (unknown [128.107.239.233]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F2BFBC00919; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:30:28 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:30:27 -0700 From: Alissa Cooper To: Olaf Kolkman , Pete Resnick Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Iana-strategy] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: (with COMMENT) References: <20140820184010.10065.93194.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <53F73B8A.2010700@qti.qualcomm.com> <864EF553-53FB-4FEA-8F65-B8AEF325F323@isoc.org> In-Reply-To: <864EF553-53FB-4FEA-8F65-B8AEF325F323@isoc.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3491537433_16042065" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/XeWf4GNta-LltZTlfP5h2w0EhEs Cc: Adrian Farrel , "iana-strategy@i1b.org" , The IESG , "ianaplan@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [Iana-strategy] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:30:35 -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_3491537433_16042065 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Just checking whether Olaf and Pete are talking past each other: Olaf, were you referring to the complete proposal that includes components for names, numbers, and protocol parameters? Pete, were you referring to the final IETF proposal that only addresses protocol parameters? My impression is that the answers to both of those questions are yes, but I=E2=80=99m not sure. Alissa On 8/22/14, 5:56 AM, "Olaf Kolkman" wrote: >=20 > On Aug 22, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Pete Resnick wro= te: >=20 >> On 8/22/14 6:34 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: >>> How will we judge IETF consensus on that final proposal? Through the WG >>> first and then through an IETF last call? >>>=20 >>> I would think that if the final proposal hits the IETF list it will be = more >>> or less immutable and there will be a request for a boolean: can we liv= e >>> with this. Not a call for bringing up new issues. I guess that all take= s >>> place at an earlier stage when draft proposals (for the other legs) hit= the >>> WG? Is that correct? >>=20 >> No, that's not correct. We should be collecting issues and assessing >> consensus all along the process. If the proposal makes it to IETF Last C= all >> and a new issue gets brought up, the issue will be discussed and we'll >> determine if there is rough consensus that the issue is serious enough t= o >> "stop the show". This is just like any other document, except in this ca= se we >> had better take very seriously the responsibility of the consensus calle= r to >> drive that consensus (which we are very lax about on most documents). >>=20 >> Of course, in effect asking whether any particular issue is a showstoppe= r >> *is* to ask whether we can live with the current proposal. But there is >> nothing different in doing that than we (should) do for any other consen= sus >> call. >=20 >=20 > I think we are in sync. >=20 > To put in my own words: >=20 > If convergence on a final document within the coordination group has been > reached (which should have as input a IETF consensus document) then an IE= TF > last call on that document can bring up new issues and we have to address > whether they are show-stoppers or not. >=20 > =E2=80=94Olaf >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > =E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=E2=80=94=20 > Olaf Kolkman > Internet Society > Chief Internet Technology Officer > kolkman@isoc.org www.isoc.org >=20 --B_3491537433_16042065 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Just checking whether Olaf an= d Pete are talking past each other:

Olaf, were you = referring to the complete proposal that includes components for names, numbe= rs, and protocol parameters?

Pete, were you referri= ng to the final IETF proposal that only addresses protocol parameters?
=

My impression is that the answers to both of those quest= ions are yes, but I’m not sure.

Alissa
<= div>
On 8/22/14, 5:56 AM,= "Olaf Kolkman" <kolkman@isoc.org&g= t; wrote:


On Aug 22, 2014, at 2:46 PM,= Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qu= alcomm.com> wrote:

On 8/22/14 6:34 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
How will we judge IETF consensus on that final prop= osal? Through the WG first and then through an IETF last call?

I woul= d think that if the final proposal hits the IETF list it will be more or les= s immutable and there will be a request for a boolean: can we live with this= . Not a call for bringing up new issues. I guess that all takes place at an = earlier stage when draft proposals (for the other legs) hit the WG? Is that = correct?

No, that's not correct. We should be collecting is= sues and assessing consensus all along the process. If the proposal makes it= to IETF Last Call and a new issue gets brought up, the issue will be discus= sed and we'll determine if there is rough consensus that the issue is seriou= s enough to "stop the show". This is just like any other document, except in= this case we had better take very seriously the responsibility of the conse= nsus caller to drive that consensus (which we are very lax about on most doc= uments).

Of course, in effect asking whether any par= ticular issue is a showstopper *is* to ask whether we can live with the curr= ent proposal. But there is nothing different in doing that than we (should) = do for any other consensus call.
<= br>

I think we are in sy= nc.

To put in my own words:

If convergence on a final document within the coordination group has been = reached (which should have as input a IETF consensus document) then an IETF = last call on that document can bring up new issues and we have to address wh= ether they are show-stoppers or not. 

—O= laf




————= ;—————— 
Olaf Kolkman
I= nternet Society
Chief Internet T= echnology Officer


On Aug 9, 2014, at 2:32 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
Dear=20 Alissa,
 
Thank you for=20 this.
 
Please find = attached my=20 comments on the draft ICG charter.

Best,
Richard
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ianaplan=20 [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Alissa=20 Cooper
Sent: vendredi, 8. ao=FBt 2014 = 23:32
To: ianaplan@ietf.org; internetgovtech@iab.org
Subject:
=20 [Ianaplan] FW: ICG Charter Open for Public = Comment

FYI.

There has been some discussion of the ICG charter on internetgovtech@iab.org, and = I=20 think it=92s the preference of Jari and myself for further = IETF/IAB=20 discussion of the charter to happen there so we can coalesce and = reflect=20 the results of that discussion back to the ICG. But if people = would rather=20 submit comments individually and directly to the ICG, information = about=20 how to do so is below.

Alissa

On 8/8/14, 2:12 PM, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>= =20 wrote:

The ICG = has=20 opened a public comment period for their charter that will end=20 on 15 August 2014 at 23:59 UTC.

Public comment=20 submission process links:

Comment = submission: icg-forum@icann.org
List of = comments=20 submitted via this site: http://forum.icann.org/li= sts/icg-forum
Charter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/d= raft-charter-coordination-group-17jun14-en.pdf [PDF,=20 43.7 KB]
Deadline: August=20 15, 2014 at 23:59 UTC

Please = view the=20 full announcement here: https://ww= w.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-08-08-en
__= _____________________________________________=20 ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.= icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition=20
--B_3491537433_16042065-- From nobody Fri Aug 22 11:32:29 2014 Return-Path: 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 DCCD91A0455; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 O_AG2dbt6bJd; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B0DF1A0109; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:32:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3993; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1408732346; x=1409941946; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=eUdYDIBFGo//31zYn4VrIv9rN9HlByYfxvOopu1DNgo=; b=b+B5NTJXEKF5Y+/Jd+6BWer6+TGKIIjKxG2anXz5HOkNHZT8L09mGlgy fjGZpxYj3SCt5PuNyYkSmTwPqijzGJkKyDm+vcvluopo+TCMUH1Nq1jAO +3b0oTtf9YHR86eDLrT0296KlrYSsaq6y0zjs+62Ra1vAhs1BeeYAjHsx 0=; X-Files: signature.asc : 486 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlYGAMCL91OtJssW/2dsb2JhbABZhzPRKAQCAYEmd4QEAQEEI1UBEAsEFAkWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYBDAEHAQGIPq9wlQ0Xj0wHgnmBUwEEkymBSodWhy+EXYkAghiBSDuCfgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,382,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="149800318" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2014 18:32:22 +0000 Received: from [10.61.89.161] (ams3-vpn-dhcp6562.cisco.com [10.61.89.161]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7MIWKnx016136; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:32:20 GMT Message-ID: <53F78CB3.2090102@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:32:19 +0200 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Olaf Kolkman , Pete Resnick References: <20140820184010.10065.93194.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <53F73B8A.2010700@qti.qualcomm.com> <864EF553-53FB-4FEA-8F65-B8AEF325F323@isoc.org> <53F757D5.5020707@qti.qualcomm.com> <3F2D4473-5376-4054-B6B6-6F85BCF0A7CF@isoc.org> In-Reply-To: <3F2D4473-5376-4054-B6B6-6F85BCF0A7CF@isoc.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pv0jvDse34ufuneOnAAPNPSl10euKbOWG" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/gphg7MkaIxHChOPDyOv23h6Cp4A Cc: Adrian Farrel , "iana-strategy@i1b.org" , The IESG , "ianaplan@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [Iana-strategy] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:32:27 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --pv0jvDse34ufuneOnAAPNPSl10euKbOWG Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040407050806060600020603" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040407050806060600020603 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 8/22/14, 6:07 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: > In addition, the fair warning I started of could still be helpful. The > coordination group reps will bring the current state of other > proposals back into the WG, and it is better that they are discussed > there in a timely fashion rather than at the tail end because there is > less opportunity to actually influence the words of the end-result. > That is what I was trying to get at with the fair warning, if you are > interested, go to the WG, don=E2=80=99t wait till the end (just as our = normal > process I recon). > It will be very important that our proposal is WIDELY circulated as we are developing it. It would even be my perference if we, the RIRs, and the various SOs could stitch together something complete for the ICG's approval. We would rather have objections within our process than outside of it. I think that gives our appointees more ammo to say, =E2=80=9Cwell, did you raise your concerns through the open processes tha= t were available to you?=E2=80=9D Eliot --------------040407050806060600020603 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 8/22/14, 6:07 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
In addition, the fair warning I started of could still be helpful. The coordination group reps will bring the current state of other proposals back into the WG, and it is better that they are discussed there in a timely fashion rather than at the tail end because there is less opportunity to actually influence the words of the end-result. That is what I was trying to get at with the fair warning, if you are interested, go to the WG, don=E2=80=99t wait till the end (just as our normal process I rec= on).


It will be very important that our proposal is WIDELY circulated as we are developing it.=C2=A0 It would even be my perference if we, the= RIRs, and the various SOs could stitch together something complete for the ICG's approval.=C2=A0 We would rather have objections within = our process than outside of it.=C2=A0 I think that gives our appointees m= ore ammo to say, =E2=80=9Cwell, did you raise your concerns through the o= pen processes that were available to you?=E2=80=9D

Eliot
--------------040407050806060600020603-- --pv0jvDse34ufuneOnAAPNPSl10euKbOWG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT94y0AAoJEIe2a0bZ0noz6x4H/11fU7FpE7fYSLJ8QQt5MOy+ n+Cmz1rfcurO8W8893TJneP1I7XFLYqgLKWQeHAk2EYRDNLHQ3C0Y7Q8UvMD0AfM UgEVY55LpNwV2MSgdq0GqDzogD/xAKemf698X12xkZNlEl1kLhFX104CzPp4EBKB V1NxTbIGmGVUJU2Fd2Hqix9mSU9HDgDMzg28i3wD+ICzhozt6zub4NrY6pgXEfT+ irEOdsAPg/+ZJrHgLYv0tFT1MWK/VhQ8gpcaWq1pnJfojm2s8IRI2dEesWbRaz+E 1HLPInM1ssoFlxv5ggDwM4gw5EZGi0SPZsTC4k7dxjGs12gXYMODMwE/Ped9ufg= =q58W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pv0jvDse34ufuneOnAAPNPSl10euKbOWG-- From nobody Fri Aug 22 12:50:57 2014 Return-Path: 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 6E93B1A06D1; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:50:56 -0700 (PDT) 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_HELO_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 sg4LFFZWtOZt; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 330561A065B; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from angora-2.local ([::ffff:173.71.212.143]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:50:52 -0400 id 015AC258.53F79F1C.00000C0C Message-ID: <53F79F1C.2050802@thinkingcat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:50:52 -0400 From: "Leslie Daigle (TCE)" Organization: ThinkingCat Enterprises User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick , Alissa Cooper References: <20140820184010.10065.93194.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <53F73B8A.2010700@qti.qualcomm.com> <864EF553-53FB-4FEA-8F65-B8AEF325F323@isoc.org> <53F757D5.5020707@qti.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <53F757D5.5020707@qti.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/fMcstJgwffva9nhShlQ5dh3xPOU Cc: Adrian Farrel , "iana-strategy@i1b.org" , The IESG , "ianaplan@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [Iana-strategy] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-ianaplan-00-03: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 19:50:57 -0000 In fine IETF tradition, there's no point in replying unless I disagree with something; it's taken a bit of work to find something to disagree with ;-) And, even so, I think it's just a different path to agreement. Having been on the other side of the OpenStand development, let me just say that I think this is good and important advice for the current process. In retrospect, it was quickly clear that the OpenStand text could have been a lot better if it had had an open and proper review (i.e., it's not just about process; the process is there for a reason!). But, it wasn't clear how to engineer that given all the moving parts. So, making sure discussion of this is open but _not_untended_ seems rational. And making sure the WG actually sticks to its charter (which, in my reading anyway, leaves latitude for the IAB to make the decisions it needs to make) will be important, too. Can't see what I disagree with? ;-) I don't think it's important to give the community more than a "take it or leave it" choice for process reasons. I think it's important because it can produce a better outcome. Leslie. On 8/22/14 10:46 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 8/22/14 9:30 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Just checking whether Olaf and Pete are talking past each other: >> >> Olaf, were you referring to the complete proposal that includes >> components for names, numbers, and protocol parameters? >> >> Pete, were you referring to the final IETF proposal that only >> addresses protocol parameters? >> >> My impression is that the answers to both of those questions are yes, >> but Im not sure. > > No, I also meant the proposals from the names and numbers folks. And I > agree with Olaf's summary: > >> On 8/22/14, 5:56 AM, "Olaf Kolkman" > > wrote: >> >>> I think we are in sync. >>> >>> To put in my own words: >>> >>> If convergence on a final document within the coordination group has >>> been reached (which should have as input a IETF consensus document) >>> then an IETF last call on that document can bring up new issues and >>> we have to address whether they are show-stoppers or not. > > Exactly. What we don't want to do is behave as if we are varying from > our normal activities. What we *will* vary is how strongly we drive the > consensus call, both when the WG is reviewing and when that review goes > to IETF Last Call. We have to have participants ready to say, "Yeah, > maybe that's not ideal, but it's not wrong enough to ask the ICG to go > back and re-work it", and we have to have the consensus caller declare > things in the rough decisively. > > My only concern is that we don't put ourselves back into the OpenStand > debacle, where we say to the community, "You only get to say 'yes' or > 'no'." We can say to the community, "You get to bring up issues the way > we do with any consensus call in the IETF, but you had better make your > case clearly and crisply that the issue is a serious one and not just a > personal preference, because we're not going to let the discussion > prattle on the way we often do." But I don't even think we need to say > that; I think we can just do it. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Iana-strategy mailing list > Iana-strategy@lists.i1b.org > http://lists.i1b.org/listinfo.cgi/iana-strategy-i1b.org > From nobody Fri Aug 29 14:21:40 2014 Return-Path: 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 147871A6F1D for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:21:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 q5urZtp8VJ6Y for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:21:37 -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 4A9291A6F75 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by gateway2.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7B920753 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:21:35 -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=PucjvYBWGg5tPX7Xq2Ma/8C tfFA=; b=NAIacmcyFVn618xYA7Kb8Fy4M5bAUEzotCnOL4kcgReGTZD88NScfgz niWcVVH/D8XSv6IcxrJQgCCw3U9qD9n6srLvbaN5OnvMfSUxO4yRRYxmWmSpFpg6 47m0y/D7VlOZ/z4tK4ubi2GcfU9K9vFEeY9dUXU1S5LIb3Snd4Ew= 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=PucjvYBWGg5tPX7Xq2Ma/8CtfFA=; b=UzUJjJecWKZQpZqbO1hLIsuSWQKu Y1R2EB7HBWU2SPFAIe2dmuo2e82EEg2Yml6uC1avKE4MVfOItMkAuoqJQoO+tn61 vjR056FrQWlRYrBBwCDU1IEzVpHmLscdhEJ4fQeCJkPkV/066Tp0ymRDqBy3+BVG 2WbKedWREzkUey0= X-Sasl-enc: 1LN/3VIQkpqHA5Yp4vZVwx9KCj8TvOWzZDCqthkB4TUS 1409347293 Received: from [10.21.90.176] (unknown [128.107.239.234]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 255076800FD for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:21:28 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:21:16 -0700 From: Alissa Cooper To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Final ICG charter published Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/F6a-qCpeH-WpDA55W13YU5ld5qg Subject: [Ianaplan] Final ICG charter published X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:21:39 -0000 The ICG charter has been published: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/charter-icg-27aug14-en.pdf From nobody Sat Aug 30 00:32:32 2014 Return-Path: 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 C10111A8861 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 00:32:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 i0D6xL3ZO95e for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 00:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4493C1A885E for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 00:32:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8948; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409383946; x=1410593546; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject; bh=1an7nfkxrYJ7WCXDitn6zmtgfyEcdt5OIVTmSX0QMDI=; b=eFA2mqirOcilgdmxkX50rJdTHxELS3euMgybrzpwX4vTGeUpQBd5nxM4 uNuLTTngPLXGjMUVcQBEORbMYvWj5+oZNEvNR+j6MfHpULrfsP4IbR0wl SF7fesE0GkIDiPM7QIrlefk3U/caXRAalqFKoPND3cIOhmttB0wQn1Yhj Q=; X-Files: signature.asc : 486 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AloGAMt8AVStJssW/2dsb2JhbABbg2BXgnzEe4dEBAKBKHeELVUBHwEcFgsCCwMCAQIBSw0BBwEBBQuILg2nLpURARePTBCCcIFTBZM3gUpehn2BW4VcjWeDYjsvAYJOAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,430,1406592000"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="154322599" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Aug 2014 07:32:23 +0000 Received: from [10.61.173.173] ([10.61.173.173]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7U7WMM2014603; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:32:22 GMT Message-ID: <54017E09.8060504@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:32:25 +0200 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ianaplan@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qV8tElxK9RnDh5FElOF7vLeg3TS0p2Nft" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/u_gXE2HiETvnpVoT9MuNwYiSitc Cc: Russ Housley Subject: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:32:28 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --qV8tElxK9RnDh5FElOF7vLeg3TS0p2Nft Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------030902020609040203020909" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030902020609040203020909 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060409020108060009050101" --------------060409020108060009050101 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear colleagues, I have posted a -00 draft that seeks to respond to the most current version of the RFP I could get my hands on. Would you kindly provide some thoughts about it? I am most particularly concerned about substance at the moment. The sorts of things I'm looking for are these: * Is the text in the "IETF Response" accurate and in fact responsive to the question? * Is there anything missing? * Is there anything that does not parse well? Did you think "Huh??" when you read a sentence? My intent is to have a second version out prior to the cutoff for the Honolulu meeting as a candidate for the IANAPLAN working group to adopt, assuming the working group is chartered. Kind thanks to Russ Housley and the members of the IAB IANA Strategy Program for their very helpful contributions. I've indicated myself and Russ as editors, because we have not been the only ones to insert text on this. Eliot ps: I am aware that the formatting could stand some improvement. I will work on that for the next version. --------------060409020108060009050101 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear colleagues,

I have posted a -00 draft that seeks to respond to the most current version of the RFP I could get my hands on.=C2=A0 Would you kindly provide some thoughts about it?=C2=A0 I am most particularly concerne= d about substance at the moment.=C2=A0 The sorts of things I'm looking = for are these:
  • Is the text in the "IETF Response" accurate and in fact responsive to the question?
  • Is there anything missing?
  • Is there anything that does not parse well?=C2=A0 Did you think= "Huh??" when you read a sentence?
My intent is to have a second version out prior to the cutoff for the Honolulu meeting as a candidate for the IANAPLAN working group to adopt, assuming the working group is chartered.

Kind thanks to Russ Housley and the members of the IAB IANA Strategy Program for their very helpful contributions.=C2=A0 I've indicated my= self and Russ as editors, because we have not been the only ones to insert text on this.

Eliot
ps: I am aware that the formatting could stand some improvement.=C2=A0= I will work on that for the next version.

--------------060409020108060009050101-- --------------030902020609040203020909 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Attached Message" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Attached Message" X-Mozilla-Keys: Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (173.37.86.79) by mail.cisco.com (173.36.12.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 01:39:22 -0500 Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Aug 2014 06:39:22 +0000 Received: from alln-inbound-l.cisco.com (alln-inbound-l.cisco.com [173.37.147.242]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7U6d9ZV008043 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:39:22 GMT Authentication-Results: alln-inbound-l.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none Received-SPF: Pass (alln-inbound-l.cisco.com: domain of internet-drafts@ietf.org designates 2001:1900:3001:11::2c as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2001:1900:3001:11::2c; receiver=alln-inbound-l.cisco.com; envelope-from="internet-drafts@ietf.org"; x-sender="internet-drafts@ietf.org"; x-conformance=spf_only; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (alln-inbound-l.cisco.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.ietf.org) identity=helo; client-ip=2001:1900:3001:11::2c; receiver=alln-inbound-l.cisco.com; envelope-from="internet-drafts@ietf.org"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.ietf.org"; x-conformance=spf_only X-from-outside-Cisco: 2001:1900:3001:11::2c X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A8DpAgCrcAFUnAAZASCDgISAEQAsW4JrdoNTiFe7eR8Mh0qBEhYCDgEBAQEBCBQJPYImEwsoCAQdAj4SAQEdBQIgVBEmAiYCAgNEFgEXBAuILwIKp0iHBI4PAReBLI4LgxWBUwWLLIozhnwBgVuXQ0wBgk4BAQE X-IPAS-Result: A8DpAgCrcAFUnAAZASCDgISAEQAsW4JrdoNTiFe7eR8Mh0qBEhYCDgEBAQEBCBQJPYImEwsoCAQdAj4SAQEdBQIgVBEmAiYCAgNEFgEXBAuILwIKp0iHBI4PAReBLI4LgxWBUwWLLIozhnwBgVuXQ0wBgk4BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,430,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="84818767" X-Amp-Result: Clean X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from mail.ietf.org ([IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::2c]) by alln-inbound-l.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 30 Aug 2014 06:39:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469721A87DE; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:39:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com 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 R063t3mUT9qr; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35E91A87E8; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: To: Eliot Lear , Russ Housley , "Russ Housley" , Eliot Lear Subject: New Version Notification for draft-lear-iana-icg-response-00.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p5 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140830063916.1613.47316.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:39:16 -0700 Return-Path: internet-drafts@ietf.org X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthMechanism: 10 MIME-Version: 1.0 A new version of I-D, draft-lear-iana-icg-response-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Eliot Lear and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-lear-iana-icg-response Revision: 00 Title: Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on IANA Document date: 2014-08-30 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 17 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lear-iana-icg-response-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lear-iana-icg-response/ Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-iana-icg-response-00 Abstract: This document contains the a draft response to a request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group regarding the protocol parameters registries. It is meant to be included in an aggregate proposal that also includes contributions covering names and addresses that will be submitted from their respective operational communities. The IETF community is invited to comment and propose changes to this document. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat --------------030902020609040203020909-- --qV8tElxK9RnDh5FElOF7vLeg3TS0p2Nft Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUAX4JAAoJEIe2a0bZ0nozZckIAK7Q1v7CZ8et2w/WDgRCE2vk hP9iu3kz4FVzY3zFFVnR1W9d7QHY34vvQgBnDj8j7NUs/UrUS9GxzNwvIjkweltT iGETitBsC50eZ4CedD1OvmkWp68chJls7I2vNEVXirBotRgfqqyH5g5UWc/iEYud v+y0FjAPvYuLCp3fviF2JGWM/39GJkejMyJewnpqIj+55gSV5d84J9bXPdaMZi7Q UEQRwJyZumVPxpjEjb1xEFjYUWfDxR0759wRXtILVXi1s9uzS2CwYx8d7GcUTYij 1tZxxd+orh+EM26jJeLV8C2O2TOpH1704PB6coNZuvcQZLkqCmu95vMqszGTZQ8= =utul -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qV8tElxK9RnDh5FElOF7vLeg3TS0p2Nft-- From nobody Sat Aug 30 06:29:57 2014 Return-Path: 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 3F9F81A0309 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:29:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 LAga3-N7y2Fb for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:29:52 -0700 (PDT) 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 372F41A029D for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Laurie (adsl-89-217-22-32.adslplus.ch [89.217.22.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7UDTdTD015066; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 15:29:39 +0200 From: "Richard Hill" To: "Eliot Lear" , Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 15:29:34 +0200 Message-ID: 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: <54017E09.8060504@cisco.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/T7P19CaTEG0SF6lDOrFKCE1x9v0 Cc: Russ Housley Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:29:55 -0000 Dear Eliot and Russ, Thank you very much for this excellent draft. I have some comments, some minor, some rather more substantive. 1) In section 1, the draft says "In that announcement, NTIA asked the = Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to establish = a process to deliver a proposal for transition." I think that it would be better to include the full mandate, and to say: = "In that announcement, NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned = Names and Numbers (ICANN) to establish a process to deliver a proposal = to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global = multistakeholder community."=20 2) In section 2, Part I, the proposed IETF response is "The customer of = the IANA protocol parameters function is the Internet Engineering Task = Force (IETF)." I think that this is literally true, but I think it is also worth noting = here (as the draft does later on) that the real users of the protocol = parameters are various implementers. So perhaps this could be modified = to read: "The customer of the IANA protocol parameters function is the = Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which acts on behalf of the = numerous implementers that use specific parameter values." 3) In section 2, Part III, at the end, the proposed IETF response is = "Because of the nature of the agreement, questions of jurisdiction are = immaterial." I don't think that this is appropriate, because the = agreement in question might well be considered a contract. I don't see = any choice of law or venue clause in the MoU or its 2014 Supplemental = Agreement, so I think that the current situation would better be = reflected as follows: "Because of the nature of the agreement, and its dispute resolution and = escalation clauses, it is not expected that any disputes would arise = that would require court interventions." And you might wish to add "Should any such disputes arise, the = jurisdiction would be the compentent jurisdiction depending on the = nature of the dispute and the parties to the dispute." 4) Related to the above, should consideration be given to adding a = proper dispute resolution clause, that is, including choice of law and = venue, to the agreement? For example, that the venue for any disputes = would be the seat of ISOC, which is the legal entity involved from the = IETF side. 5) In section 2, part IV, the proposed IETF response is "No changes are = required, as over the years since the creation of ICANN, the IETF, = ICANN, and IAB have together created a system of agreements, policies, = and oversight mechanisms that covers what is needed." I would suggest that this be slightly modified to read "No operational = changes are required, ..." The reason for this change is that some non-operational changes may be = required, see below. 6) In section 2, part IV, under "Transition Implications", the IETF = response is "No structural changes are required." This is correct, but I = think that some contractual changes are required in order to make it = clear that the ultimate authority for the protocol parameters is IETF, = not ICANN. So I would propose to add, at the end of that section, the following = three paragraphs. "At present, article I.1 of the ICANN Bylaws implies that ICANN has the = overall responsibility for the coordination and allocation and = assignment of the protocol parameters. That article should be modified = to make it clear that, as specified in RFC 2860, it is the IETF that has = the overall responsibility for the coordination and allocation and = assignment of the protocol parameters. "And item 4 of RFC 2860 should be modified to read as follows: "4. Agreed technical work items. ICANN agrees, notwithstanding any = provisions in its Bylaws or other corporate documents that might be = construed differently, that during the term of this MOU it shall cause = IANA to comply ..." For reference, item 4 of RFC 2860 currently reads "4. Agreed technical = work items. ICANN agrees that during the term of this MOU it shall cause = IANA to comply ..." 7) There was extensive discussion (but no agreement) on the IANA = Transition mailing list regarding whether or not the fact that a US = court could, in theory, order ICANN/IANA to do something contrary to = agreed community policies is an issue and, if so, whether anything = should be proposed to deal with that issue, such as proposing that the = entity that performs the IANA function should have immunity of = jurisdiction, or that the entity should have redundant sites in more = than one jurisdiction. If there is support for dealing with that issue, then some text could be = added. =20 Thanks again for the great work and best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Eliot Lear Sent: samedi, 30. ao=C3=BBt 2014 09:32 To: ianaplan@ietf.org Cc: Russ Housley Subject: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review Dear colleagues, I have posted a -00 draft that seeks to respond to the most current = version of the RFP I could get my hands on. Would you kindly provide = some thoughts about it? I am most particularly concerned about = substance at the moment. The sorts of things I'm looking for are these: Is the text in the "IETF Response" accurate and in fact responsive to = the question?=20 Is there anything missing?=20 Is there anything that does not parse well? Did you think "Huh??" when = you read a sentence?=20 My intent is to have a second version out prior to the cutoff for the = Honolulu meeting as a candidate for the IANAPLAN working group to adopt, = assuming the working group is chartered. Kind thanks to Russ Housley and the members of the IAB IANA Strategy = Program for their very helpful contributions. I've indicated myself and = Russ as editors, because we have not been the only ones to insert text = on this. Eliot ps: I am aware that the formatting could stand some improvement. I will = work on that for the next version. From nobody Sat Aug 30 07:44:55 2014 Return-Path: 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 748131A03D2 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:44:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, 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 tzXv1cNGinyc for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:44:52 -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 90A061A03B8 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.145.129]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7UEiRUS028875 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:44:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1409409885; x=1409496285; bh=F9NZyZt9g9Jw5xQ6vl4DC/3orXZkuFR7ASglZ+TG2a4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=AuasRGXkFtLS0FbBWgeG2F4ZdNwX0piXSNktI2kEfaIuQ0ehXKehVkUqdmO8Dp7DL GEaqY4WobnReXYYCLb62ok2wqvUyXxmvWl5LIx2psWXB0yahNv92TkfcpiqqKV8nh2 hKZUWVR19yc073N2loIlCepE4kjE5OUiTmyHSU84= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1409409885; x=1409496285; i=@elandsys.com; bh=F9NZyZt9g9Jw5xQ6vl4DC/3orXZkuFR7ASglZ+TG2a4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=yUKq3pwd382VJIU0ZlDeNXEqcPRZkwuQcDyAQkQAGj7OhlliBEZcHeG9oEdbHJRyE r2IPWACjB9MqpqNwOg8TAmOPZ5deWPnzwVk56DHpT+d3Y3f6bX5wYrj/KjKfwWZjzB NJ5EQ5EqdKFNnc+wwrPdlOdAXWC/j/paQcFZeF6M= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140830052032.0c96c880@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:38:33 -0700 To: Eliot Lear , ianaplan@ietf.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <54017E09.8060504@cisco.com> References: <54017E09.8060504@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/b4-QXSMbNeCqAVeVFVHWxrl45Uk Cc: Russ Housley Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:44:54 -0000 Hi Eliot, At 00:32 30-08-2014, Eliot Lear wrote: >I have posted a -00 draft that seeks to respond to the most current >version of the RFP I could get my hands on. Would you kindly >provide some thoughts about it? I am most particularly concerned >about substance at the moment. The sorts of things I'm looking for are these: >Is the text in the "IETF Response" accurate and in fact responsive >to the question? >Is there anything missing? >Is there anything that does not parse well? Did you think "Huh??" >when you read a sentence? >My intent is to have a second version out prior to the cutoff for >the Honolulu meeting as a candidate for the IANAPLAN working group >to adopt, assuming the working group is chartered. "The IETF is a global voluntary standards organization whose goal is to make the Internet work better [RFC3595]." The IETF cannot be a MIB module. :-) Quoting from the draft: "The customer of the IANA protocol parameters function is the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)." The above is inconsistent with a stated IETF position. "1. The IETF protocol parameter registry function has been and continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical community." What is the "Internet technical community"? "The IETF uses the IANA protocol parameter registries for this purpose." The above is not aligned with the stated position of the IETF. Quoting two parts of the responses out of context: "It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to participate, including anyone from ICANN or the RIRs, and many people from those organizations regularly do." "In-person attendance is not required for participation, and many people participate in email discussions that have never attended an IETF meeting." I scanned the ietf@ mailing list archives and I did not find anyone from ICANN or the RIRs participating on that mailing list. "Because of the nature of the agreement, questions of jurisdiction are immaterial." Why are questions of jurisdictions immaterial? "Any modifications to the protocol parameter registry function should be made using the IETF process" The above is incorrect. The IETF responses are not well-formulated in my opinion. There isn't any reference to the IANA Functions contract. As this topic has been mentioned I'll comment. From https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en "The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN: 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are "c. Protocol port and parameter numbers." ICANN may have to adjust its bylaws if RFC 6220 is to be followed. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Sat Aug 30 13:30:17 2014 Return-Path: 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 EE5E21A0AE5 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:30:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 ojAheCUZ6fh0 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x22f.google.com (mail-pd0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A2AA1A0AE3 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ft15so2926221pdb.34 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:30:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=G3ngzKEyGtaMKHhT0IoHjLrbQFH2RgjJxkT1IFQ8vkM=; b=WeMRHXwS+mHpZCufRPVToaPuq3Xf6kdqFLcDzBHahIAgXmGhHDNrgZqwQITjF8hMVJ xMpLa2kab4IRZNbnYcqdtfjVqvAQDH7LvhfBqcujE3vS/B8bJbcQLx09lj5rLbxoKYgD GXeytNXNUUku1P8fVsXx6zeW+71z0DHQCtKsxcxMiYl8/9DqLdyKUQArVHQMMeE0mO+O LuDaYYVZP0FUttdjjR5i/dETcCJ4r+rYkXb4xigfJSKxYA+EoK9+IVZVdqqlRSvpyZyK EeIWwlNqZn2pLzMqxuuvcwuQm2PoT14Tdm8A4bfizPtlt04IAoPTi0ISLDDO32zzOryi 5uyA== X-Received: by 10.66.122.3 with SMTP id lo3mr26323029pab.7.1409430613915; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.23] (5.199.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.199.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id st7sm12279902pab.7.2014.08.30.13.30.11 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54023460.40200@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:30:24 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rhill@hill-a.ch References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/B_qRx0G4kqzzMhhH-ssh3nic32w Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Russ Housley , Eliot Lear Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:30:16 -0000 Hi, I will review the draft carefully in due course, but I want to react briefly to a couple of Richard's comments: On 31/08/2014 01:29, Richard Hill wrote: ... > 4) Related to the above, should consideration be given to adding a proper dispute resolution clause, that is, including choice of law and venue, to the agreement? I believe that we should explicitly not mention a legal venue. We should simply stick to the IAB being in charge and the IESG being the technical decision taker in case of doubt. We never, ever want to suggest that a court has authority. (And if we did, we would definitely not want it to be a national court anyway.) ... > "And item 4 of RFC 2860 should be modified to read as follows: > > "4. Agreed technical work items. ICANN agrees, notwithstanding any provisions in its Bylaws or other corporate documents that might be construed differently, that during the term of this MOU it shall cause IANA to comply ..." > > For reference, item 4 of RFC 2860 currently reads "4. Agreed technical work items. ICANN agrees that during the term of this MOU it shall cause IANA to comply ..." IANAL, but that "notwithstanding" clause seems logically redundant. The existing text (which was ratified by the ICANN Board in 2000) leaves no loophole. Personally I think the risks in changing even one word in the existing MoU are too great. > 7) There was extensive discussion (but no agreement) on the IANA Transition mailing list regarding whether or not the fact that a US court could, in theory, order ICANN/IANA to do something contrary to agreed community policies is an issue and, if so, whether anything should be proposed to deal with that issue, such as proposing that the entity that performs the IANA function should have immunity of jurisdiction, or that the entity should have redundant sites in more than one jurisdiction. > > If there is support for dealing with that issue, then some text could be added. While I'd love to see it happen, I think it's a separable issue so should be left out of scope for now. Brian From nobody Sun Aug 31 03:07:43 2014 Return-Path: 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 185AB1A88ED for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 03:07:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 HADG8RkAI2J7 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 03:07:32 -0700 (PDT) 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 E5FCF1A88FC for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 03:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-38-80-172.adslplus.ch [178.38.80.172]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp4.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7VA7Hti019357; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:07:17 +0200 From: "Richard Hill" To: "Brian E Carpenter" Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:07:10 +0200 Message-ID: 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: <54023460.40200@gmail.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/1flUZIDB1nXqqXwYs_VgeB6-VcY Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Russ Housley , Eliot Lear Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 10:07:39 -0000 Dear Brian, Thank you for these thoughtful comments. Please see additional comments embedded below. Best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > Sent: samedi, 30. ao=C3=BBt 2014 22:30 > To: rhill@hill-a.ch > Cc: Eliot Lear; ianaplan@ietf.org; Russ Housley > Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I will review the draft carefully in due course, but I want to react > briefly to a couple of Richard's comments: >=20 > On 31/08/2014 01:29, Richard Hill wrote: > ... >=20 > > 4) Related to the above, should consideration be given to=20 > adding a proper dispute resolution clause, that is, including=20 > choice of law and venue, to the agreement? >=20 > I believe that we should explicitly not mention a legal venue.=20 Whether you mention it or not, the legal venue exists. Either party to = the agreement (ICANN or ISOC) could take the other to court, arguing = that the agreement is a contract. >We=20 > should simply > stick to the IAB being in charge and the IESG being the technical = decision > taker in case of doubt. We never, ever want to suggest that a court = has > authority.=20 As noted above, there is no way to prevent one party from taking the = other to court. What the outcome might be is anybody's guess. >(And if we did, we would definitely not want it to be=20 > a national > court anyway.) I definitely agree with that. But the only way to ensure that a = national court cannot get involved is to specify an arbitration clause, = something like: "Any disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall = be finally settled by binding arbitration under the [commercial | = international] arbitration rules of the [American Arbitration = Association | Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institution] by three = arbitrators. The language of arbitration shall be English. The seat of = arbitration shall be [New York, New York | Geneva, Switzerland]. The = agreement shall be governed by the law of [California | New York | = Switzerland]." Obviously other possibilites exist for the bits in square brackets (I'm = using the symbol | to indicate the option to choose one of the = possibilities). >=20 > ... >=20 > > "And item 4 of RFC 2860 should be modified to read as follows: > >=20 > > "4. Agreed technical work items. ICANN agrees, notwithstanding=20 > any provisions in its Bylaws or other corporate documents that=20 > might be construed differently, that during the term of this MOU=20 > it shall cause IANA to comply ..." > >=20 > > For reference, item 4 of RFC 2860 currently reads "4. Agreed=20 > technical work items. ICANN agrees that during the term of this=20 > MOU it shall cause IANA to comply ..." >=20 > IANAL, but that "notwithstanding" clause seems logically=20 > redundant.=20 I wouldn't be so sure about that. The agreement is indeed clear, but = what may not be clear is whether ICANN explicitly agreed that the = agreement takes priority over its Bylaws. The ICANN Board has a fiduciary duty faithfully to abide by the ICANN = Bylaws. Since the Bylaws imply that the Board is the ultimate = decision-making authority, the Board might feel that the Bylaws have = prededence over the agreement. Of course if that ever happened ISOC could cancel the agreement, but, in = accordance with the cancellation clause, that would leave ICANN in = charge for six months, until ISOC establishes some other mechanism. The possibility that the ICANN Board might override an IETF decision = clearly does not arise at present, because the IANA Functions contract = between ICANN and NITA specifies (in 1.2.9) that ICANN will implement = the IETF policies/instructions. But the issue here is how to replace that contract. Once that contract = is gone, there should be, in my opinion, some formal recognition by = ICANN that it is not the ultimate authority, the ultimate authority is = still the IETF. That is, I think that something like the language in question is needed = to replace the current contract between NTIA and ICANN.=20 >The existing > text (which was ratified by the ICANN Board in 2000) leaves no=20 > loophole. Personally > I think the risks in changing even one word in the existing MoU=20 > are too great. What risks do you have in mind? >=20 > > 7) There was extensive discussion (but no agreement) on the=20 > IANA Transition mailing list regarding whether or not the fact=20 > that a US court could, in theory, order ICANN/IANA to do=20 > something contrary to agreed community policies is an issue and,=20 > if so, whether anything should be proposed to deal with that=20 > issue, such as proposing that the entity that performs the IANA=20 > function should have immunity of jurisdiction, or that the entity=20 > should have redundant sites in more than one jurisdiction. > >=20 > > If there is support for dealing with that issue, then some text=20 > could be added. >=20 > While I'd love to see it happen, I think it's a separable issue so > should be left out of scope for now. >=20 > Brian >=20 From nobody Sun Aug 31 11:28:16 2014 Return-Path: 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 86C9C1A036C for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:28:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 uBtk1chduzzm for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.246.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58EF91A8A99 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:28:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=EtSbaiUUZYSjs6OicMVuFKgVoT9/DxQIyaD85nm/CaQ=; b=d8mmqGjkVxqZhnF1iDw7KhV7824cwzbOZpnqYf7oTZqT0AKKs4u4HuXZWx7LPwSokhMySRkpi+BQazEcWh9/5AmlTpXIEG9BNt4D7Lki8CpbcezC9V0ki/B5TTDMs0bEt83dw17g/FxorpPZXKY7bG6K0kUR9lqOnM68y6zqDiY=; Received: from ip68-100-74-115.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.74.115]:50084 helo=[192.168.15.119]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XO9rG-0000Jx-IG for ianaplan@ietf.org; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:28:11 -0700 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E185B525-6F29-4937-B383-4CD62B61A7D6"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Eric Burger X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:28:10 -0400 Message-Id: References: To: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/x_c6Qvr_0zpHIXVuxkuSevto8nY Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:28:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E185B525-6F29-4937-B383-4CD62B61A7D6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Anyone can take anyone to court anywhere. Both the Internet Society and = ICANN are setting up offices that could be potential venues all over the = world. Any one we chose today will be a bad one tomorrow. If we do not = need to specify a venue today, and we have managed without one for the = past decade and a half, let=92s not start now. On Aug 31, 2014, at 6:07 AM, Richard Hill wrote: > Dear Brian, >=20 > Thank you for these thoughtful comments. >=20 > Please see additional comments embedded below. >=20 > Best, > Richard >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] >> Sent: samedi, 30. ao=FBt 2014 22:30 >> To: rhill@hill-a.ch >> Cc: Eliot Lear; ianaplan@ietf.org; Russ Housley >> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review >>=20 >>=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> I will review the draft carefully in due course, but I want to react >> briefly to a couple of Richard's comments: >>=20 >> On 31/08/2014 01:29, Richard Hill wrote: >> ... >>=20 >>> 4) Related to the above, should consideration be given to=20 >> adding a proper dispute resolution clause, that is, including=20 >> choice of law and venue, to the agreement? >>=20 >> I believe that we should explicitly not mention a legal venue.=20 >=20 > Whether you mention it or not, the legal venue exists. Either party = to the agreement (ICANN or ISOC) could take the other to court, arguing = that the agreement is a contract. >=20 >> We=20 >> should simply >> stick to the IAB being in charge and the IESG being the technical = decision >> taker in case of doubt. We never, ever want to suggest that a court = has >> authority.=20 >=20 > As noted above, there is no way to prevent one party from taking the = other to court. What the outcome might be is anybody's guess. >=20 >> (And if we did, we would definitely not want it to be=20 >> a national >> court anyway.) >=20 > I definitely agree with that. But the only way to ensure that a = national court cannot get involved is to specify an arbitration clause, = something like: >=20 > "Any disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement = shall be finally settled by binding arbitration under the [commercial | = international] arbitration rules of the [American Arbitration = Association | Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institution] by three = arbitrators. The language of arbitration shall be English. The seat of = arbitration shall be [New York, New York | Geneva, Switzerland]. The = agreement shall be governed by the law of [California | New York | = Switzerland]." >=20 > Obviously other possibilites exist for the bits in square brackets = (I'm using the symbol | to indicate the option to choose one of the = possibilities). >=20 >>=20 >> ... >>=20 >>> "And item 4 of RFC 2860 should be modified to read as follows: >>>=20 >>> "4. Agreed technical work items. ICANN agrees, notwithstanding=20 >> any provisions in its Bylaws or other corporate documents that=20 >> might be construed differently, that during the term of this MOU=20 >> it shall cause IANA to comply ..." >>>=20 >>> For reference, item 4 of RFC 2860 currently reads "4. Agreed=20 >> technical work items. ICANN agrees that during the term of this=20 >> MOU it shall cause IANA to comply ..." >>=20 >> IANAL, but that "notwithstanding" clause seems logically=20 >> redundant.=20 >=20 > I wouldn't be so sure about that. The agreement is indeed clear, but = what may not be clear is whether ICANN explicitly agreed that the = agreement takes priority over its Bylaws. >=20 > The ICANN Board has a fiduciary duty faithfully to abide by the ICANN = Bylaws. Since the Bylaws imply that the Board is the ultimate = decision-making authority, the Board might feel that the Bylaws have = prededence over the agreement. >=20 > Of course if that ever happened ISOC could cancel the agreement, but, = in accordance with the cancellation clause, that would leave ICANN in = charge for six months, until ISOC establishes some other mechanism. >=20 > The possibility that the ICANN Board might override an IETF decision = clearly does not arise at present, because the IANA Functions contract = between ICANN and NITA specifies (in 1.2.9) that ICANN will implement = the IETF policies/instructions. >=20 > But the issue here is how to replace that contract. Once that = contract is gone, there should be, in my opinion, some formal = recognition by ICANN that it is not the ultimate authority, the ultimate = authority is still the IETF. >=20 > That is, I think that something like the language in question is = needed to replace the current contract between NTIA and ICANN.=20 >=20 >> The existing >> text (which was ratified by the ICANN Board in 2000) leaves no=20 >> loophole. Personally >> I think the risks in changing even one word in the existing MoU=20 >> are too great. >=20 > What risks do you have in mind? >=20 >>=20 >>> 7) There was extensive discussion (but no agreement) on the=20 >> IANA Transition mailing list regarding whether or not the fact=20 >> that a US court could, in theory, order ICANN/IANA to do=20 >> something contrary to agreed community policies is an issue and,=20 >> if so, whether anything should be proposed to deal with that=20 >> issue, such as proposing that the entity that performs the IANA=20 >> function should have immunity of jurisdiction, or that the entity=20 >> should have redundant sites in more than one jurisdiction. >>>=20 >>> If there is support for dealing with that issue, then some text=20 >> could be added. >>=20 >> While I'd love to see it happen, I think it's a separable issue so >> should be left out of scope for now. >>=20 >> Brian >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan --Apple-Mail=_E185B525-6F29-4937-B383-4CD62B61A7D6 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIPOTCCBN0w ggPFoAMCAQICEHGS++YZX6xNEoV0cTSiGKcwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwezELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgMEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBwwHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UECgwR Q29tb2RvIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxITAfBgNVBAMMGEFBQSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTZXJ2aWNlczAeFw0w NDAxMDEwMDAwMDBaFw0yODEyMzEyMzU5NTlaMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQx FzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsx ITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJz dC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8A MIIBCgKCAQEAsjmFpPJ9q0E7YkY3rs3BYHW8OWX5ShpHornMSMxqmNVNNRm5pELlzkniii8efNIx B8dOtINknS4p1aJkxIW9hVE1eaROaJB7HHqkkqgX8pgV8pPMyaQylbsMTzC9mKALi+VuG6JG+ni8 om+rWV6lL8/K2m2qL+usobNqqrcuZzWLeeEeaYji5kbNoKXqvgvOdjp6Dpvq/NonWz1zHyLmSGHG TPNpsaguG7bUMSAsvIKKjqQOpdeJQ/wWWq8dcdcRWdq6hw2v+vPhwvCkxWeM1tZUOt4KpLoDd7Nl yP0e03RiqhjKaJMeoYV+9Udly/hNVyh00jT/MLbu9mIwFIws6wIDAQABo4IBJzCCASMwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUoBEKIz6W8Qfs4q8p74Klf9AwpLQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59 MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggr BgEFBQcDBDARBgNVHSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwewYDVR0fBHQwcjA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC5j b21vZG9jYS5jb20vQUFBQ2VydGlmaWNhdGVTZXJ2aWNlcy5jcmwwNqA0oDKGMGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwu Y29tb2RvLm5ldC9BQUFDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZVNlcnZpY2VzLmNybDARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCAQYw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAJ2Vyzy4fqUJxB6/C8LHdo45PJTGEKpPDMngq4RdiVTgZTvzbRx8 NywlVF+WIfw3hJGdFdwUT4HPVB1rbEVgxy35l1FM+WbKPKCCjKbI8OLp1Er57D9Wyd12jMOCAU9s APMeGmF0BEcDqcZAV5G8ZSLFJ2dPV9tkWtmNH7qGL/QGrpxp7en0zykX2OBKnxogL5dMUbtGB8SK N04g4wkxaMeexIud6H4RvDJoEJYRmETYKlFgTYjrdDrfQwYyyDlWjDoRUtNBpEMD9O3vMyfbOeAU TibJ2PU54om4k123KSZB6rObroP8d3XK6Mq1/uJlSmM+RMTQw16Hc6mYHK9/FX8wggUaMIIEAqAD AgECAhBtGeqnGU9qMyLmIjJ6qnHeMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkG A1UECBMCVVQxFzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNU IE5ldHdvcmsxITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVRO LVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsMB4XDTExMDQyODAwMDAw MFoXDTIwMDUzMDEwNDgzOFowgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNo ZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYD VQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0EwggEi MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCShIRbS1eY1F4vi6ThQMijU1hfZmXxMk73nzJ9 VdB4TFW3QpTg+SdxB8XGaaS5MsTxQBqQzCdWYn8XtXFpruUgG+TLY15gyqJB9mrho/+43x9IbWVD jCouK2M4d9+xF6zC2oIC1tQyatRnbyATj1w1+uVUgK/YcQodNwoCUFNslR2pEBS0mZVZEjH/CaLS TNxS297iQAFbSGjdxUq04O0kHzqvcV8H46y/FDuwJXFoPfQP1hdYRhWBPGiLi4MPbXohV+Y0sNsy fuNK4aVScmQmkU6lkg//4LFg/RpvaFGZY40ai6XMQpubfSJj06mg/M6ekN9EGfRcWzW6FvOnm//B AgMBAAGjggFLMIIBRzAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSJgmd9xJ0mcABLtFBIfN49rgRufTAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU ehNOAHRbxnhjZCfBL+KgW7x5xXswDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAw EQYDVR0gBAowCDAGBgRVHSAAMFgGA1UdHwRRME8wTaBLoEmGR2h0dHA6Ly9jcmwudXNlcnRydXN0 LmNvbS9VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kRW1haWwuY3JsMHQGCCsG AQUFBwEBBGgwZjA9BggrBgEFBQcwAoYxaHR0cDovL2NydC51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tL1VUTkFkZFRy dXN0Q2xpZW50X0NBLmNydDAlBggrBgEFBQcwAYYZaHR0cDovL29jc3AudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAhda+eFdVbTN/RFL+QtUGqAEDgIr7DbL9Sr/2r0FJ9RtaxdKtG3Nu PukmfOZMmMEwKN/L+0I8oSU+CnXW0D05hmbRoZu1TZtvryhsHa/l6nRaqNqxwPF1ei+eupN5yv7i kR5WdLL4jdPgQ3Ib7Y/9YDkgR/uLrzplSDyYPaUlv73vYOBJ5RbI6z9Dg/Dg7g3B080zX5vQvWBq szv++tTJOjwf7Zv/m0kzvkIpOYPuM2kugp1FTahp2oAbHj3SGl18R5mlmwhtEpmG1l1XBxunML5L SUS4kH7K0Xk467Qz+qA6XSZYnmFVGLQh1ZnV4ENAQjC+6qXnlNKw/vN1+X9u5zCCBTYwggQeoAMC AQICEQCwcaHVUMvQr+uhWE6z/ys+MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkG A1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01P RE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg U2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBMB4XDTEzMDkxMDAwMDAwMFoXDTE0MDkxMDIzNTk1OVowKzEpMCcGCSqG SIb3DQEJARYaZWJ1cmdlckBzdGFuZGFyZHN0cmFjay5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IB DwAwggEKAoIBAQCxsTeCcKu2DcGpn/1av3deopvE+iZNMeV5D7uryZzJJlW78DX6Ugtm5v7fDQM0 w+ijJ7JXyIBmjuZMIZVAP/U5NTZ4GpRD3moBiBKHWW/MBDspwVzryfDASZloZIx+8HGefXE6Vstj xJ0q8NnGnCHv7Id6g3ZePlE+2BIvqgLDcQNCa37lC9Yj0/Whac6OCP6Tcy+ezMywoAghNu/FbDY9 HQNLeCBmW+kMTt6vNfUu6roR4Iy2hS9PNsjoZF4x71LIuXIwupFgYBzV3/LnEz0iEKvBTiOf/b1s 5cnNpoTV2Lq784IF+1D1o4HdO5xWId+RrEmev6sLDxGh0VfS1BQ3AgMBAAGjggHqMIIB5jAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBR6E04AdFvGeGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUlcezSUOqYMzJfC7DgAgDnv2C ZSowDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgWgMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIAYDVR0lBBkwFwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCysG AQQBsjEBAwUCMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFIDBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEBATAr MCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1odHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEyg SqBIhkZodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFu ZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9j cnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxD QS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAlBgNVHREEHjAcgRpl YnVyZ2VyQHN0YW5kYXJkc3RyYWNrLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEARA5ce+WEvcpqZkn1 T6t5U8yN9pwldHwp473Xt552deVY+o0X9iWnjlKqiFSJBKR0jD1/qEmQR4NJiMnak+aP3bxZtAlJ RH/DcmzCFuj9MSAVuiMGLVwYURDtz69M8MuWG3JHXqyyKyTM2dfVnNPv3od58ysHRnD6Sau9jIhi JO18BAV3usIfzGaiiwk/WFP3JuRssfkMFTGAeXzMuDm4smaxb2FMtZTsJIY8yZEOwjg7SnhP6MOr zTLbVOxIBjLsrpWZR4+XJqptgntH8Ic5yjx7d1Oh+zh2uBnOPbQEVC8OL6eoN+BIP1JpUnSG1Ajc ky0WGPCq2V1T8yqVjCqWtDGCA64wggOqAgEBMIGpMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMS R3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0Eg TGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJl IEVtYWlsIENBAhEAsHGh1VDL0K/roVhOs/8rPjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIB2TAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMx CwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xNDA4MzExODI4MTFaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEW BBR5GfKiTTE2Yt4bpRNKuImLHzR4mTCBugYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGsMIGpMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJH QjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQK ExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlv biBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhEAsHGh1VDL0K/roVhOs/8rPjCBvAYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsx gayggakwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNV BAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8g Q2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0ECEQCwcaHVUMvQr+uhWE6z /ys+MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAK9f8tLNnDXg5VcypDLOF9L2z8FkMIZOEV66k4yqBH7P4oI3 /V+6mt1tSU5uEGoGVxTP99b613vnxzSEwIoo7+ScG6IlxAQtTZFZZo8xyawhaz6g9g2HZolg9Yyn nejpO2RO3mb7pXmQSfiDvWagXKSqDQzbxLhPs+uc89SrRE2EO1dLKs5U9q55AivjFcCSpWaLjJ71 vf5LHfHTaV5oUfYq54wRHMQk5iNRaJo7hSlXjYyH0FBN3OG7I7AolwkaWQnr3fNEsKzrk05eu6Uq zTdMaS+/ZJSfLyk1Oh/D1kNtx+gpcJA55DbMzE6igWtkKWjhG1PLJarBUsOy6odWRccAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_E185B525-6F29-4937-B383-4CD62B61A7D6-- From nobody Sun Aug 31 11:42:36 2014 Return-Path: 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 537961A8AD1 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:42:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 C4L3FNqyEivz for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:42:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.246.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE11E1A8AAC for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:42:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=In-Reply-To:To:References:Date:Subject:Mime-Version:Message-Id:Content-Type:From; bh=CLX8t2RRAP1XROnocyBgDcJzWdXgTg4nH7GTcciRJmY=; b=Kzm/j7GZhCy6oe7goH/EivEJ7Iaec9jZAdqIl+WPtxrXOx1s5rksi2jmQ011YfAbIp7frFBHYi2arSz1h3utftyrkOIc2xmKTECGk8iTJbKGBvUGs4bOCaLl9ck8bC64q1oLo0oeb2ZUVjf7ASEbt7UlSx5W8woPOpb4JNCqFCU=; Received: from ip68-100-74-115.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.74.115]:50105 helo=[192.168.15.119]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XOA50-0000GL-PN for ianaplan@ietf.org; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:42:30 -0700 From: Eric Burger Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E185E1D9-4D15-44E7-B9FF-7B79A5619EB2"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:42:22 -0400 References: <54017E09.8060504@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140830052032.0c96c880@resistor.net> To: ianaplan@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140830052032.0c96c880@resistor.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Q4dm74L_GcKMjwGVXw7k3Q4YF20 Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:42:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E185E1D9-4D15-44E7-B9FF-7B79A5619EB2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I like the humor, like the MIB dig. However, for the substantive = comments, we should fix.=20 Inline. On Aug 30, 2014, at 10:38 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Eliot, > [snip] > "The customer of the IANA protocol parameters function is the = Internet > Engineering Task Force (IETF)." >=20 > The above is inconsistent with a stated IETF position. >=20 > "1. The IETF protocol parameter registry function has been and > continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical > community." >=20 > What is the "Internet technical community=94? I think the disconnect is /direction/ for the IANA protocol parameters = function comes from the IETF, which is an embodiment of the Internet = technical community. The /input/ for the function is capably provided, = not the /function/ itself. The language needs fixing. How about: The Internet technical community, through the IETF, has in the past and = for the foreseeable future will provide direction to the IANA protocol = parameter registry. >=20 > "The IETF uses the IANA protocol parameter registries for > this purpose." >=20 > The above is not aligned with the stated position of the IETF. It is not that it is not aligned with the stated position of the IETF, = it is that it is the IETF community, including implementers, =93the = IETF's primary users of the IETF standards and other documents,=94 that = use the IANA protocol parameter registries. How about: Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined protocol parameters. = Implementers use these parameters. Implementers are the IETF's primary = users of the IETF standards and other documents. A globally available = registry contains the parameter values and a pointer to documentation of = the associated semantic intent. This registry, the IANA protocol = parameter registry, provides this service to ensure consistent = interpretation of these parameter values by independent implementations. >=20 > Quoting two parts of the responses out of context: >=20 > "It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to > participate, including anyone from ICANN or the RIRs, and many = people > from those organizations regularly do." >=20 > "In-person attendance is not required for participation, and many > people participate in email discussions that have never attended > an IETF meeting." >=20 > I scanned the ietf@ mailing list archives and I did not find anyone = from ICANN or the RIRs participating on that mailing list. RIR and ICANN people regularly come to IETF meetings, which means they = participate. As we say, in-person attendance is not required for = participation. Likewise, email discussions are also not required for = participation. Thus, there is no inconsistency. Moreover, participation = does not require posting. I will bet there are a lot of ICANN and RIR = people subscribed (i.e., participating) to IETF email lists. >=20 > "Because of the nature of the agreement, questions of jurisdiction = are > immaterial." >=20 > Why are questions of jurisdictions immaterial? See my other note to Richard. > "Any modifications to the protocol parameter registry function > should be made using the IETF process" >=20 > The above is incorrect. How? Any text for what you think it is / should be? >=20 > The IETF responses are not well-formulated in my opinion. There isn't = any reference to the IANA Functions contract. >=20 > As this topic has been mentioned I'll comment. =46rom = https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en >=20 > "The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and = Numbers > ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global = Internet's > systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the = stable > and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. = In > particular, ICANN: >=20 > 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of = unique > identifiers for the Internet, which are >=20 > "c. Protocol port and parameter numbers." >=20 > ICANN may have to adjust its bylaws if RFC 6220 is to be followed. >=20 > Regards, > S. Moonesamy >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan --Apple-Mail=_E185E1D9-4D15-44E7-B9FF-7B79A5619EB2 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIPOTCCBN0w ggPFoAMCAQICEHGS++YZX6xNEoV0cTSiGKcwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwezELMAkGA1UEBhMCR0Ix GzAZBgNVBAgMEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBwwHU2FsZm9yZDEaMBgGA1UECgwR Q29tb2RvIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxITAfBgNVBAMMGEFBQSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBTZXJ2aWNlczAeFw0w NDAxMDEwMDAwMDBaFw0yODEyMzEyMzU5NTlaMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCVVQx FzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNUIE5ldHdvcmsx ITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVROLVVTRVJGaXJz dC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8A MIIBCgKCAQEAsjmFpPJ9q0E7YkY3rs3BYHW8OWX5ShpHornMSMxqmNVNNRm5pELlzkniii8efNIx B8dOtINknS4p1aJkxIW9hVE1eaROaJB7HHqkkqgX8pgV8pPMyaQylbsMTzC9mKALi+VuG6JG+ni8 om+rWV6lL8/K2m2qL+usobNqqrcuZzWLeeEeaYji5kbNoKXqvgvOdjp6Dpvq/NonWz1zHyLmSGHG TPNpsaguG7bUMSAsvIKKjqQOpdeJQ/wWWq8dcdcRWdq6hw2v+vPhwvCkxWeM1tZUOt4KpLoDd7Nl yP0e03RiqhjKaJMeoYV+9Udly/hNVyh00jT/MLbu9mIwFIws6wIDAQABo4IBJzCCASMwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUoBEKIz6W8Qfs4q8p74Klf9AwpLQwHQYDVR0OBBYEFImCZ33EnSZwAEu0UEh83j2uBG59 MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMCBggr BgEFBQcDBDARBgNVHSAECjAIMAYGBFUdIAAwewYDVR0fBHQwcjA4oDagNIYyaHR0cDovL2NybC5j b21vZG9jYS5jb20vQUFBQ2VydGlmaWNhdGVTZXJ2aWNlcy5jcmwwNqA0oDKGMGh0dHA6Ly9jcmwu Y29tb2RvLm5ldC9BQUFDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZVNlcnZpY2VzLmNybDARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCAQYw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAJ2Vyzy4fqUJxB6/C8LHdo45PJTGEKpPDMngq4RdiVTgZTvzbRx8 NywlVF+WIfw3hJGdFdwUT4HPVB1rbEVgxy35l1FM+WbKPKCCjKbI8OLp1Er57D9Wyd12jMOCAU9s APMeGmF0BEcDqcZAV5G8ZSLFJ2dPV9tkWtmNH7qGL/QGrpxp7en0zykX2OBKnxogL5dMUbtGB8SK N04g4wkxaMeexIud6H4RvDJoEJYRmETYKlFgTYjrdDrfQwYyyDlWjDoRUtNBpEMD9O3vMyfbOeAU TibJ2PU54om4k123KSZB6rObroP8d3XK6Mq1/uJlSmM+RMTQw16Hc6mYHK9/FX8wggUaMIIEAqAD AgECAhBtGeqnGU9qMyLmIjJ6qnHeMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkG A1UECBMCVVQxFzAVBgNVBAcTDlNhbHQgTGFrZSBDaXR5MR4wHAYDVQQKExVUaGUgVVNFUlRSVVNU IE5ldHdvcmsxITAfBgNVBAsTGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTE2MDQGA1UEAxMtVVRO LVVTRVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIEVtYWlsMB4XDTExMDQyODAwMDAw MFoXDTIwMDUzMDEwNDgzOFowgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNo ZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNVBAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYD VQQDEzBDT01PRE8gQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0EwggEi MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCShIRbS1eY1F4vi6ThQMijU1hfZmXxMk73nzJ9 VdB4TFW3QpTg+SdxB8XGaaS5MsTxQBqQzCdWYn8XtXFpruUgG+TLY15gyqJB9mrho/+43x9IbWVD jCouK2M4d9+xF6zC2oIC1tQyatRnbyATj1w1+uVUgK/YcQodNwoCUFNslR2pEBS0mZVZEjH/CaLS TNxS297iQAFbSGjdxUq04O0kHzqvcV8H46y/FDuwJXFoPfQP1hdYRhWBPGiLi4MPbXohV+Y0sNsy fuNK4aVScmQmkU6lkg//4LFg/RpvaFGZY40ai6XMQpubfSJj06mg/M6ekN9EGfRcWzW6FvOnm//B AgMBAAGjggFLMIIBRzAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSJgmd9xJ0mcABLtFBIfN49rgRufTAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU ehNOAHRbxnhjZCfBL+KgW7x5xXswDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAw EQYDVR0gBAowCDAGBgRVHSAAMFgGA1UdHwRRME8wTaBLoEmGR2h0dHA6Ly9jcmwudXNlcnRydXN0 LmNvbS9VVE4tVVNFUkZpcnN0LUNsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kRW1haWwuY3JsMHQGCCsG AQUFBwEBBGgwZjA9BggrBgEFBQcwAoYxaHR0cDovL2NydC51c2VydHJ1c3QuY29tL1VUTkFkZFRy dXN0Q2xpZW50X0NBLmNydDAlBggrBgEFBQcwAYYZaHR0cDovL29jc3AudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbTAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAhda+eFdVbTN/RFL+QtUGqAEDgIr7DbL9Sr/2r0FJ9RtaxdKtG3Nu PukmfOZMmMEwKN/L+0I8oSU+CnXW0D05hmbRoZu1TZtvryhsHa/l6nRaqNqxwPF1ei+eupN5yv7i kR5WdLL4jdPgQ3Ib7Y/9YDkgR/uLrzplSDyYPaUlv73vYOBJ5RbI6z9Dg/Dg7g3B080zX5vQvWBq szv++tTJOjwf7Zv/m0kzvkIpOYPuM2kugp1FTahp2oAbHj3SGl18R5mlmwhtEpmG1l1XBxunML5L SUS4kH7K0Xk467Qz+qA6XSZYnmFVGLQh1ZnV4ENAQjC+6qXnlNKw/vN1+X9u5zCCBTYwggQeoAMC AQICEQCwcaHVUMvQr+uhWE6z/ys+MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkG A1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01P RE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg U2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBMB4XDTEzMDkxMDAwMDAwMFoXDTE0MDkxMDIzNTk1OVowKzEpMCcGCSqG SIb3DQEJARYaZWJ1cmdlckBzdGFuZGFyZHN0cmFjay5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IB DwAwggEKAoIBAQCxsTeCcKu2DcGpn/1av3deopvE+iZNMeV5D7uryZzJJlW78DX6Ugtm5v7fDQM0 w+ijJ7JXyIBmjuZMIZVAP/U5NTZ4GpRD3moBiBKHWW/MBDspwVzryfDASZloZIx+8HGefXE6Vstj xJ0q8NnGnCHv7Id6g3ZePlE+2BIvqgLDcQNCa37lC9Yj0/Whac6OCP6Tcy+ezMywoAghNu/FbDY9 HQNLeCBmW+kMTt6vNfUu6roR4Iy2hS9PNsjoZF4x71LIuXIwupFgYBzV3/LnEz0iEKvBTiOf/b1s 5cnNpoTV2Lq784IF+1D1o4HdO5xWId+RrEmev6sLDxGh0VfS1BQ3AgMBAAGjggHqMIIB5jAfBgNV HSMEGDAWgBR6E04AdFvGeGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUlcezSUOqYMzJfC7DgAgDnv2C ZSowDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgWgMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIAYDVR0lBBkwFwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCysG AQQBsjEBAwUCMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFIDBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEBATAr MCkGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh1odHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEyg SqBIhkZodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFu ZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0dHA6Ly9j cnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2VjdXJlRW1haWxD QS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAlBgNVHREEHjAcgRpl YnVyZ2VyQHN0YW5kYXJkc3RyYWNrLmNvbTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEARA5ce+WEvcpqZkn1 T6t5U8yN9pwldHwp473Xt552deVY+o0X9iWnjlKqiFSJBKR0jD1/qEmQR4NJiMnak+aP3bxZtAlJ RH/DcmzCFuj9MSAVuiMGLVwYURDtz69M8MuWG3JHXqyyKyTM2dfVnNPv3od58ysHRnD6Sau9jIhi JO18BAV3usIfzGaiiwk/WFP3JuRssfkMFTGAeXzMuDm4smaxb2FMtZTsJIY8yZEOwjg7SnhP6MOr zTLbVOxIBjLsrpWZR4+XJqptgntH8Ic5yjx7d1Oh+zh2uBnOPbQEVC8OL6eoN+BIP1JpUnSG1Ajc ky0WGPCq2V1T8yqVjCqWtDGCA64wggOqAgEBMIGpMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMS R3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0Eg TGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJl IEVtYWlsIENBAhEAsHGh1VDL0K/roVhOs/8rPjAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIB2TAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMx CwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xNDA4MzExODQyMjNaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEW BBQ1HmwMD2f7onDwg8FCwdtgeWscuzCBugYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYGsMIGpMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJH QjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQK ExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlv biBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBAhEAsHGh1VDL0K/roVhOs/8rPjCBvAYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsx gayggakwgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkdCMRswGQYDVQQIExJHcmVhdGVyIE1hbmNoZXN0ZXIxEDAOBgNV BAcTB1NhbGZvcmQxGjAYBgNVBAoTEUNPTU9ETyBDQSBMaW1pdGVkMTkwNwYDVQQDEzBDT01PRE8g Q2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBTZWN1cmUgRW1haWwgQ0ECEQCwcaHVUMvQr+uhWE6z /ys+MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAFg1DR0O+8OaXFWx2Auui5lqkd1W7CS23ouhem8ayb0WRLw9 L+7PbMBDLoPzAN2EjzmKlKfjP6t99kiwdCSjIhBhpWWBOMu8+0Z4w+fF1KLZlFo7iqHx+pYCBKfC Wl3rFgkNvF8L7++znr8oDVEYtG4QF5IO7v+1L23HaxVmZFKq5GoR3KOMsywblAHZSJhUzDVh+ond dHpQYX6aRPTASdAwp7y6tPhSm/SD1TAAvTxGLC7Vwhf3GPqokdpRRdl6yPy93/eeNHqGcj1fqLny OFKBQqaubiPPo/PtMe1TPNomFTj6OmAy4NAsvceiZGjRN/NGX+VBwrWSqNNmRL1TcPMAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_E185E1D9-4D15-44E7-B9FF-7B79A5619EB2-- From nobody Sun Aug 31 13:01:59 2014 Return-Path: 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 13D0F1A9025 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:01:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 H_JxLzSlJNj8 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x229.google.com (mail-pd0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D57611A9024 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id g10so4500199pdj.0 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:01:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gMMezyvyHfvZRVCdMkmuEmf9jlFVybQT/S2jWNW5p/w=; b=gmzQ3FsoOSz+KRbVvtmoM9f3BCq+xCkTC2HCdmAgxvGeY8yrm7UhuH+yUU4cvtAFiQ J2eBIBXrw+qfKYNKIVqaqThLkA5+rczzOUXqGtQ/742ZkQ+PRgKlgJy1CGQ/SHsEjSad Cx6bcj8ChtBxSBQGjM+EE8rTdztpNj8ejMb+qw84ZQvq72HkLKlWEPcFGu6+CypaulQY 094jVGbFpkoWc5Cl8pO3QDJDj4kUXS8PnCjhw+5fk1JYbHS0kjVM3awF7g+aDLxa0jZZ y7WwLXVSWkc6tfXOU0USCSOfZxfoJLpYfFLKiDREMElFQUNxd7nLt3F10sdpvipEihUh sOHQ== X-Received: by 10.68.219.102 with SMTP id pn6mr5454949pbc.135.1409515312117; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.23] (124.196.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.196.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ff10sm8950239pdb.61.2014.08.31.13.01.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <54037F3C.6020409@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 08:02:04 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rhill@hill-a.ch References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Gryhtm3pqutxLZFzKeXvfDJ6U0k Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Russ Housley , Eliot Lear Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IANA Plan List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:01:57 -0000 On 31/08/2014 22:07, Richard Hill wrote: ... >> The existing >> text (which was ratified by the ICANN Board in 2000) leaves no >> loophole. Personally >> I think the risks in changing even one word in the existing MoU >> are too great. > > What risks do you have in mind? Pressure to change something more fundamental as a result of opening the document up at all for this relatively small point. Brian