[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)
- To: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)
- From: "vinton g. cerf" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:56:59 -0400
- Cc: Brian E Carpenter <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, IFWP Giaw <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Stef@nma.com, email@example.com, DOMAIN-POLICY@lists.internic.net, Iana Comments <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Iana standard addr <Iana@iana.org>, Giaw Listserv <List@giaw.org>, Justice department <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <35A75861.5AD9F821@ix.netcom.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <35A78CF2.FC3F756D@hursley.ibm.com><email@example.com>
At 01:19 PM 7/11/98 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Vinton and all,
> You seem to be indication that the nIANA WILL be the new non-profit
>corporation to which the White Paper refers to as the controlling
>which the IFWP is attempting to put together. Is that correct? If so, where
>and how do you arrive at this assumption?
It seems clear that the present IANA will have to change because
the manner of its support is changing. I have no pre-conceived
assumptions as to the outcome of all the discussions. Should I
have used a different term than "newIANA"? Is there one which is
not associated with any current proposal?
>> Jon Postel recently contributed a fairly long description
>> of the status of his efforts and it would be enormously
>> beneficial to get constructive comments and recommendations
>> on it.
> I have on several occasions and received NO reply to questions
>that I and many others have already posed to Jon Postel and the
>IANA. Why is this? IF we are to be putting together a new non-profit
>entity and the IANA is to play a role or part in that new organization
>isn't it incumbent for Jon and the other IANA individuals to respond
>to those question themselves?
I guess that depends on what the questions were.
>> Many of you will be in Geneva for the next round of
>> discussions contributing to the IFWP effort - it would be
>> helpful to get more done prior to that meeting by email,
>> with particular focus on input from those who may not be
>> in attendance in Geneva.
> Agreed. And there seems to be allot of constructive questions and
>suggestions thus far.
yes and I hope we can keep on that track and avoid further
>> Reports from the July 1/2 meetings and the July 7 meetings
>> should be readily available and these factored into further
>> discussion as well.
> Where are the July 7th notes and transcripts posted for public review?
>Are there any?
jim dixon tried to send his notes out as powerpoint but evidently
some re-mailers could not accept the large file.
>> There are just a few months remaining between now and September
>> and it seems to me that we have a good deal of work to do to
>> prepare for newIANA operation by that time.
> Again Vinton, you seem to be making an assumption that the nIANA
>will be that organization. Why is that?
I am not making that assumption - you've made that for me, apparently.
I am happy to use some term for the next IANA which isn't pre-judged.
>> Vint Cerf
>> If you are using any email address other than firstname.lastname@example.org,
>> please change your address book to use that address exclusively.
>> See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24,July 98 http://www.isoc.org/inet98/
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
If you are using any email address other than email@example.com,
please change your address book to use that address exclusively.
See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24,July 98 http://www.isoc.org/inet98/