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

[Greg Shatan]

Is there any reason to believe, even in a wild scenario, that the CSC or an
IFR has the remit, authority or jurisdiction to remove (or even recommend
the removal) of a TLD (.ARPA or otherwise) from the root?



On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20151008/85fe4b55/attachment-0001.html>