[Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents

[Ram Mohan]

This is why it's important to first have a conversation with the number and
protocol communities and determine their point of view, rather than make
assumptions about their level of caring, and in parallel impose bylaw
changes on functions that impact them directly. Discussions involving human
rights in the IETF have been quite charged in the past. This is more complex
than the simplistic case presented below.


-----Original Message-----
From: wp4-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr
Eberhard W Lisse
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 10:04 AM
To: wp4 at icann.org
Cc: directors at omadhina.net
Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents

Adherence to human rights within ICANN's mission will interfere the
allocation of a protocol or an IPv6 block?

Come on!?!?!

el

On 2015-10-07 15:59, Ram Mohan wrote:
> The protocol and number communities expect that the naming community 
> not unilaterally require bylaw changes on the organization that 
> includes functions that are critical to what they do without 
> consultation. I don't see why that is something we should object to.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wp4-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf 
> Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:53 AM
> To: wp4 at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I do not see this.  This is ICANN accountabilty.  And the Protocol and 
> Number communities have made it very clear that they are not 
> intersteed in what the Names community does with accountability, or 
> much of anything else the Names community cares about for that matter, 
> as long as we leave them out of it.
> 
> Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as 
> we have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they 
> just perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the
OCs.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
>> Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply 
>> ICANN in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
>>
>> Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs.
[...]
_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4