[IANAOversight] Fwd: Re: [Ianaplan] Summary/refinement of scenarios discussed so far (was Constructive redirect -- focusing discussions)

[Seun Ojedeji]

On the ietf list it's been discussed whether the IETF could pull the
contract[1] for all the registries, which makes a lot of sense

Cheers!
1. Although I expect that it won't be a term based type.

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
Date: 25 Sep 2014 05:52
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Summary/refinement of scenarios discussed so far
(was Constructive redirect -- focusing discussions)
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Cc: "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>, "John Curran" <
jcurran at istaff.org>, <ianaplan at ietf.org>

This response to John's critical question hits me as a jackpot! Hopefully
we'd then focus on such contract content

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 25 Sep 2014 01:06, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 25/09/2014 11:22, John Curran wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 2014, at 7:13 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> this "these spaces" claim is not actually correct: the IETF ois not
> >> making an entry inside a space delegated to someone else or making
> >> policy inside someone else's space, but is instead drawing the
> >> boundaries where different policy actors reside.
> >
> > Understood.  My question was different... Does the IETF take
> responsibility
> > for arranging for IANA registry services for all of the IANA registries
> (a
> > contract which would say, just as RFC 2860, that there are other sources
> of
> > policy for some spaces), or do the RIRs and ICANN need to also contract
> for
> > IANA services for their respective portions of these spaces?
>
> Now that's a good question. I'm thinking that if a parameter space
> was created by IETF action (or by the IETF's predecessors, since there
> are things here that date back before 1986) then logically the IETF should
> contract for the *existence* of the whole registry, even if some parts
> of the registry are no longer populated under IETF technical direction.
> But I don't think the IETF should be held responsible for the *contents*
> of those parts of the registry. (IANAL, so I will not attempt to discuss
> how this should be expressed in formal language.)
>
>     Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/ianaoversight/attachments/20140925/71214831/attachment.htm