John, > For the record, I still believe that 2050bis should be > published. Regardless of what I think of some of the things it > says, I think it is reasonably reflective of reality and that > reality is always worth documenting.
Thanks. > As to my more general comments, they were not really addressed > to 2050bis and I have no desire to start a discussion of them > here. However, some assertions about how well ICANN is working > were made on this list by people who do not usually participate > actively in IETF's technical work. In part because some ICANN > decisions and behaviors does affect the fate of IETF protocols > and the state of the Internet generally, Ok. Understood. > I would welcome a discussion (definitely somewhere > else) about that difference in perceptions … That would > include an offlist discussion of why your perceptions and mine > may differ should you find such a discussion useful. Fair enough. Hopefully some of that could be fed into ICANN as well. (I should probably have indicated that my experience is very limited. I didn't want to indicate that there are no challenges - I know there are.) Jari
