[Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG

Narelle Clark narelle.clark at accan.org.au
Tue Jan 6 23:19:54 UTC 2015

I have read this through, and my impression is that it is more work  than I had thought as it requires a lot of additional reading in order to assess the document.

It makes many references to other documents, which is fair enough, but then I need to (as we say) ferret them out in  order to consider their content.

Whether or not I need to consider this content deeply is a moot question. The community it serves is clearly satisfied with the processes etc the documents describe, and therefore it is arguable that these processes and systems must be satisfactory.

But what if they aren't?

Just thinking out loud, here and clearly I am still processing this response with respect to its ability to provide us with the input we need to fulfil the task we have.

What do others think?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2015 4:26 AM
> To: ICG
> Subject: [Internal-cg] IETF response to ICG
> Dear all,
> As you know, the IETF has been working on the protocol parameters aspects of
> the transition. We created the IANAPLAN working group, developed a proposed
> response, and held community discussions.
> And of course, there has been a lot of past evolution in this space as well.
> This part of the process is coming to an end from our side. Our steering group,
> the IESG, approved the proposed response on December 18, and after some
> minor editorial changes, the document has been formally approved today,
> January 6.
> The link to our proposal is below, and we look forward to working with the ICG
> and other communities on the next steps. We are committed to ensuring a good
> outcome for the Internet in this topic.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09
> Jari Arkko

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list