[discuss] On the technical side

[John Curran]

On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

> - You (the 14 StatusHolders) have to sell us this change. BTW, we do not need that change, because we did do with NTIA and ICANN but we do not need ICANN.
> 
> Therfore, our decision is about using this new ICANN solution of yours (ICANN StatusHolders) or not. And you tell us "too soon to consider building our sales pitch to convince you", "we do not care", "we are not going to do any effort to convince you: up to you to discuss with us our possible traps".
> ...

JFC - The context of all of the above is with respect to your reference to 
concerns about the IETF Trust in the IANA transition.  

NTIA will need to be convinced to proceed as they have stated, but that 
is actually the global community's job to make happen after it develops 
a transition plan... no global community support, then there is no plan;
if there's no plan, then there will be no transition.  

(As an aside and based on going through the Netmundial submissions, I'd
like to suggest that there is actually quite a bit of interest in the 
global community for such a transition, the question is whether there is
actually sufficient common principles and beliefs upon which the global
Internet community can build a plan...)

> 3. John, you ask about specific points. This worries us a lot. If you genuinely do not see that documents refering to the US laws, codes, decisions, etc. every other line might raise some problem in an international conflicting context, it means you are totally unprepared to it. Please understand that we need partners we can technically trust.   ..

I appreciate your dissertation of the need for trust, but trust also requires
constructive engagement, and both Andrew and I have pointed out that your 
raising the IETF Trust as something needing to be studied (with respect to the 
IANA issue) without providing any basis for your belief is actually dilutive to 
the discussion (thus raising real concerns of trust regarding your participation.)

> The internet needs something reliable, secure, stable, trusted, operationnal.

Agreed, and look forward to discussing your views _and their basis_ whenever
you wish...

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.