[CWG-Stewardship] CWG response on .ARPA (Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Questions from the ICG)

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:39:18PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> > Well I did not say its all about .ARPA as i correlated my statement with
> > "related strings" but does your statement removes the fact that IP6.ARPA
> or
> > URN.ARPA are second level string (domains) of .ARPA (which is the first
> > level domain). What happens to IP6.ARPA if .ARPA is no longer in
> existence
> > due to whatever decision that is made by CSC/IFR?
>
> I agree that would be very bad.  The IAB has already pointed out,
> however, that the IFR language needs to be adjusted so that it is does
> not apply to IETF decisions.
>

Well we are discussing the CWG's response to ICG on .ARPA and it will be
good for CWG to acknowledge such statement from IAB in her response.
Otherwise it will just be an act of going round in circles.

>
> Anyway, if the CSC or IFR actually made a decision that removed arpa,
> I think we'd be in a crisis of such epic proportions that the problems
> resulting from the missing reverse mappings would look tiny.  (After
> all, reverse mappings are badly maintained on the Internet generally
> anyway -- the RIRs do a good job but lots of other people blow it.)  I
> think if we get to that stage, the very idea of "co-ordination" would
> have broken down so badly that the entire oversight model would be in
> question.  Indeed, it's hard to imagine an arpa change of the sort you
> are talking about that wouldn't result in a speedy global abandoning
> of the IANA root in favour of some other, sanely-operated root.
> DNSSEC makes that painful, but not impossible.
>

I agree that a lot will have gone bad bad and really there may be little or
no major impact for a while if such happens. Nevertheless we have set
ourselves on the part of "wild" and unbelievable scenarios (which is one of
the basis for the CWG proposal) in this process so its on that basis that I
am responding as well.

>
> People keep approaching these issues as though there is real power to
> enforce illegitimate decisions.  But the Internet doesn't work that
> way, and if we do things that are sufficiently bone-headed we will
> find ourselves irrelevant in short order.  In my opinion, that's a
> good thing.  It's that technical feature -- permissionless innovation
> at the edge -- that's got us this far.
>

I agree but the approach we have gone through in this transition doesn't
seem as such. You may one to peep in the ccwg to have a hint (CWG was
perhaps bearable)

Regards

>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151008/b17c640f/attachment.html>