Subject: Re: [iucg] [Ianaplan] Summary/refinement of scenarios discussed so far (was Constructive redirect -- focusing discussions)

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:36:58 +0200

At 19:58 24/09/2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
>At 09:11 24-09-2014, Jefsey wrote:
>>This calls for two remarks :
>>
>>1.  To my knowledge the charter does not specify two communities.
>
>Strictly speaking , the above is correct.
>
>>I want to make clear that I belong the Internet Users Community and 
>>I speak as one of its member, i.e. as an "IETF Customer" as we are 
>>sometimes inadequately qualified in some texts. The interests of my 
>>community were traditionnally supposed to be conveniently 
>>represented by the US procurement process and the quality of its 
>>obtained deliveries guaranteed by the expertise of its Contracting Officers.
>
>Ok.
>
>>2. The Chair states that "there is no such proposal yet. When they 
>>will be ready, we will review them".
>>
>>This is an important change from the Charter and only says that the 
>>WG may review and comment them.
>
>The WG Charter is at 
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ianaplan/charter/  I do not view 
>that sentence from the WG Chair as a change.

As explained I used your mail because it listed the pending points. 
My evaluations are mine. They do not claim to be yours.

The charter says "may", the chair says "will". The charter says 
"communities", it is now agreed there are not only two communities.
It therefore means that a I_D presented by the IUse community will be 
discussed.

This is a step in the good direction.

>>This "status-quo" position is clearly stated by the chairs. It 
>>opposes every possibility of innovation or the discussion of 
>>special cases resulting from IUse, Name and Numbers communities 
>>where names, numbers and parameters could be entangled.
>
>My view is that the WG Chair clarified what the discussion was about 
>in response to what I asked.  I did not ask about "status-quo".

Again my evaluations are mine and do not claim to be yours.

I did ask a review of the charter. The co-chair responded the WG 
would follow a "status-quo" line unless directed otherwise by the IESG.

Members of my community therefore call for this WG to discuss a 
Charter review with the IESG in order to make it consistent with the 
context of our reality, as we believe it differs from the ICANN 
virtuality. This is an effort toward a concerted dialog and in order 
to avoid the complication of an appeal against a far too restrcitive 
Charter, in the post WCIT international political context and the 
observed insidious NTIA question creep from DNS class "IN" root file 
oversight to IANA functions.

jfc

>Regards,
>S. Moonesamy