On 19/06/2013 18:25, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 18 jun 2013, at 18:54, Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I think this is the correct strategy, BUT, I see as a very active participant
> in ICANN (chair of SSAC) that work in ICANN could be easier if some "more"
> technical standards where developed in IETF,
A pre-condition for that is that technical and operational problem statements
are formulated, which could be sent to appropriate WGs or used to justify
a BOF. If ICANN could focus on that instead of solutionism or committeeism,
progress should be possible.
Brian
> and moved forward along standards track, that ICANN can reference. Same with
> some epp-related issues, and also DNS-related, which I must admit I think has
> stalled in the IETF. When that happens, ICANN start to "invent" or at least
> discuss IETF related issues -- which I think is non optimal. But on the other
> hand, if IETF do not move forward, then what should ICANN do?
>
> I will btw be the first few days (until including Tuesday or so) at IETF in
> Berlin and am happy to discuss this issue with anyone interested.
>
> Patrik Fältström
> Chair SSAC, ICANN
>
> .
>
