On 6/21/13 10:46 , John Curran wrote:
I believe that policy issues that are under active discussion in
ICANN can also be discussed in the IETF, but there is recognition
that ICANN is likely the more appropriate place to lead the process
of consensus development and approval.
I believe that protocol development that is under active discussion
at the IETF can also discussed at ICANN, but there is recognition
that the IETF is likely the appropriate place to lead the process
of consensus development and approval.
Note that there are lots of things that are neither policy nor
protocols (e.g. operational best practices and guidelines) and
while one can claim that either forum is valid, it really depends
on the particular situation and where those folks who are closest
to the problem actually choose to go with it (and depending on the
protocol, that might not be either of the above...)
/John
Disclaimer: My views alone - YMMV.
A version of these three paragraphs would make an excellent executive
summary for the 2050bis Draft itself.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: far...@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
