[Internal-cg] Step 2 assessment

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 22 08:19:02 UTC 2015

Dear Jari,,Dear Paul

Dear All

Thank you Jari for the message and hyperlink providing additional
information in regard  on how the  accountability  has been dealt till now.

However, in order to be quite clear, there seems to be appropriate that
anything relating to accountability is addressed by CCWG a competent group
established for this purpose.

Similar Course of action could be equally applied to numbers

It may there be good to liaise with them on this regard and seek whether
there would be any additional actions or measures to be taken

2015-02-22 8:57 GMT+01:00 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>:

> First, I agree with the proposed way forward, and that we
> should focus on parts B and C now. (With obvious further
> work down the line for us when the names proposal is
> ready.)
> And I very much agree with this point of view from Joe:
> >> Agree with the path forward, and would also suggest that we keep the
> >> Names community apprised of our progress on related work as things they
> >> may wish to consider in the development of their proposal.
> Finally, back to substance - part B deals with accountability. With
> the help of our IANA program at IAB, Russ and I recently
> wrote an informational piece that talks about how we view
> accountability and stability for protocol parameters. There’s
> nothing new here if you’ve read the relevant RFCs, the
> proposal, and other documents, but it may be a helpful
> explanation of the big picture:
> http://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/02/ensuring-continuity-of-the-iana-registries/
> As for the relationship of protocol and number proposals
> wrt accountability, I think the arrangements are very similar
> and at this point I cannot see any conflicts or missed areas.
> Looking forward to input from others.
> For part C, I think the answers from IETF perspective
> are rather obvious, as we are continuing existing
> practices and the adjustments are relatively minor.
> But again, I think we’ve already talked about
> the main differences between the protocol
> and number proposals, and it seems easy
> to find a path forward where they can work
> together.
> Cheers,
> Jari
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150222/5d3d4026/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list