On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Thanks Jordi.
Personally, Joe's language doesn't normally annoy me since I
filter his mail unread, but I agree that what you quote is completely
inappropriate and in complete coflict with RFC 3005.
ok - will review the rfc and submit my opinion.
cheers
joe
Inappropriate postings include:
...
- Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
Brian
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Joe,
I feel that your language is becoming too much abusive.
You need to think that, even if you believe is the true what you're saying,
and you have the right of freedom to express it, there are ways to don't
hurt other people sensibility ("ball brokers").
Please, read twice before clicking "send" and refrain from further abusive
posting. Otherwise you will be forcing us to take a serious decision
regarding your future postings.
Thanks for your understanding.
IETF Sergeant at Arms
De: Joe Baptista <baptista(_at_)cynikal(_dot_)net>
Responder a: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:03:21 -0500 (EST)
Para: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com>
CC: Leslie Daigle <leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com>, IAB
<iab(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, Carl Malamud
<carl(_at_)media(_dot_)org>,
<martijnburger(_at_)dataweb(_dot_)nl>
Asunto: Re: FYI -- IAB statement on IANA RFI
my detailed notes below ...
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 18:27 08/03/2006, Carl Malamud wrote:
It's been pointed out that the note to DoC was actually sent by
the IAB and the IETF *Chair* not the IETF as whole.
Obviously, the timescale of this RFI was too short for the
IETF as a whole to debate a response. In fact, it was even too short
for us to spot this nit.
Or to run a spell checker? It would have been better to not answer
instead of doing such a haphazard job. This was not an effective
document either in terms of process or substance.
Dear Carl,
the problem is that IETF and IAB do not want to accept the real world.
http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=10717
I strongly support this move by china. t is about time that IANA
recognize the obvious - open up the root. This is a good start. China is
quick to learn the technological trap they have fallen into. They need
ICANN as much as ICANN needs them. It also shows a very interesting
simularity to what happened at the Public-Root. There we had Turey as our
partner - like the chinese - not the best of human rights partners but
partners non the less brougt together through necessitty.
And the real world is catching up. The USG is in a real world.
Their, our world.
What to do now?
will they wake up to reality - what we will see is a compromise. but they
chinese are ball breakers - and I think it's high time someone break some
balls at ICANN. Go china go.
- to ignore? possibly losing control on the IANA.
- to adapt in creating an IETF server? possibly creating a mess for
nothing if they do not sell? worse if they sell?
- lto ead in reviewing the architecture towards a fully distributed
network with concerted IANA, one a country? a language?
NOT an easy choice. But a choice which has to be made.
The PublicRoot structure is the ultimate choice framework which provides
for shared operability.
regards
joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf