--On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 19:54 +0300 Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
Chris: The last call on RFC 2050 bis has ended. The draft will
be shortly on the IESG telechat, up for an approval decision
and/or suggestion for changes. I personally think it is ready
to move forward. That is not to say that we wouldn't take
comments, if you have some.
Jari,
For the record, I still believe that 2050bis should be
published. Regardless of what I think of some of the things it
says, I think it is reasonably reflective of reality and that
reality is always worth documenting.
As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things
to be improved in ICANN. I'd suggest though that some of the
feedback might be better placed in an ICANN discussion than on
IETF list. And is not like there'd be nothing to improve on
our side :-) Lets focus on IETF aspects here. For what it is
worth, I have limited experience about ICANN, but it has all
been very positive.
As to my more general comments, they were not really addressed
to 2050bis and I have no desire to start a discussion of them
here. However, some assertions about how well ICANN is working
were made on this list by people who do not usually participate
actively in IETF's technical work. In part because some ICANN
decisions and behaviors does affect the fate of IETF protocols
and the state of the Internet generally, I concluded after a lot
of consideration that those assertions should be responded to on
this list. I would welcome a discussion (definitely somewhere
else) about that difference in perceptions if it were possible
that it would bring about either improved understanding or
changes that would make the various decision-making processes
that affect the Internet more open and/or more based on a
general understanding of Internet technical reality. That would
include an offlist discussion of why your perceptions and mine
may differ should you find such a discussion useful.
best,
john