Subject: [Ianaplan] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:58:14 -0400

Documents from the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) meeting last week have been posted.

The ICG charter:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-charter-coordination-group-17jun14-en.pdf

A statement about the meeting that took place in London last week:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-icg-statement-18jul14-en.pdf

The agenda, transcripts, and so on are available here:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-resources-2014-07-18-en

Russ

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:09:44 -0400

Hi,

> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-charter-coordination-group-17jun14-en.pdf

I have a question of the slice and dice methodology for the topics into
3 categories.

Does the IETF, though it includes the protocol work on DNS and the tools
to support the likes of WHOIS functionality and the design on numbering
systems, plan to only contribute 'outputs' on protocol parameters?

Not commenting for now on the orphan issues - things NTIA stewards a
that don't fit into any of the 3 defined operational groups.  that is a
problem for other messages.

I understand why various organization may be the ones to take the first
shot and even the lead on various issues, I am concerned that we
building walls to who can prodice recommendations that need to be
coordinated on which aspects.  I think that silo orientation is a losing
methodology and is one that put too much control in the hands of the IGC.

avri

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:03:15 -0700

Hi Martin,

[Cc to ianaplan@]

The scenario you posted is not improbable.  There are cases where the 
interests of the IETF does not converge with the interests of, for 
example, ICANN.  It is usually not a problem as there is a MoU about 
that.  There has only been one instance (which I am aware of) where 
the MoU was invoked.  It is in the interest of the IETF and ICANN to 
resolve issues amicably.  However, money brings out the worse out of 
people.  I don't think that it is possible to avoid such a problem in 
future.  If there were to be an additional provision it would not, in 
my opinion, be in the best interests of the IETF.

The letter at 
http://newgtldnews.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/mt_to_icann.pdf might 
illustrate the issues.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy