--On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 19:54 +0300 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Chris: The last call on RFC 2050 bis has ended. The draft will > be shortly on the IESG telechat, up for an approval decision > and/or suggestion for changes. I personally think it is ready > to move forward. That is not to say that we wouldn't take > comments, if you have some. Jari, 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. > As for the rest of the discussion - I'm sure there are things > to be improved in ICANN. I'd suggest though that some of the > feedback might be better placed in an ICANN discussion than on > IETF list. And is not like there'd be nothing to improve on > our side :-) Lets focus on IETF aspects here. For what it is > worth, I have limited experience about ICANN, but it has all > been very positive. 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, I concluded after a lot of consideration that those assertions should be responded to on this list. I would welcome a discussion (definitely somewhere else) about that difference in perceptions if it were possible that it would bring about either improved understanding or changes that would make the various decision-making processes that affect the Internet more open and/or more based on a general understanding of Internet technical reality. That would include an offlist discussion of why your perceptions and mine may differ should you find such a discussion useful. best, john