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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Greg,

Out of existence is actually a phrase that first came to me, not that it's
ever possible(but again how many of our scenarios are ever realistically
possible).

The main point however is whether CSC is a position to review performance
of IANA as it concerns .ARPA and whether IFR decisions (including
recommendations for separation and/or any other recommended action to be
carried out on names TLDs) includes .ARPA. The current CWG response does
not address that explicitly.

The thing is we are entering into a future where clarity of role is
important and ambiguity needs to be avoided as much as possible.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 8 Oct 2015 17:12, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20151008/69f5cc26/attachment.html>