On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:43 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
...
The point, Warren (and others) is that all of these are ICANN
doing technical stuff and even technical standards in a broad
sense of that term. Some of it is stuff that the IETF really
should not want to do (I'm
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
--On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:46 -0400 John Curran
jcur...@istaff.org wrote:
...
Let's not complicate things further by making the assumption
that anything that reasonably looks like technical stuff
belongs in the IETF and not in ICANN. It is likely to just
make having the right
On Jun 21, 2013, at 2:56 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
While I agree with the above (and am still trying to avoid
carrying this conversation very far on the IETF list), I think
another part of the puzzle is that there are also situations in
which technical considerations imply
