Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

Andrew Sullivan <> Mon, 26 January 2015 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2771A8860 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 06:28:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7-7uQ0mqWWp3 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 06:28:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3B141A8844 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 06:28:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CDB58A031 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:28:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:28:14 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:28:18 -0000

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 08:43:03AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> and several others had withe the process - the WG was not representing the
> IETF "community" in that its charter explicitly excluded policy, legal,
> contractual, and governance issues from its scope.

The IETF community approved the charter in the first place.  If for
not other reason, I therefore think you are mistaken.  In any case, the
BoFs that we held on this topic repeatedly confirmed that there was no
policy issue, because we all agreed that the source of policy matters
on the relevant IANA registries was, is, and shall remain the IETF.
The legal and contractual issues at the IETF are delegated to the IAOC
and, where necessary, the Trust, and we have a mechansism for how we
manage that delegation.  I'm not sure what "governance issues" means
apart from all of that, so I can't respond to that.

> "This is the way <we> do it" is a pretty good way to get proposals thrown at
> without reading.

But the _entire point_ of the way the whole ICG process works is that
the affected communities were to use their regular processes to
generate their responses.  The IETF did that.  If you are arguing,
"The IETF operates wrong," that's fine; but it's irrelevant to the
question of whether the IETF developed a response in the appropriate

I have to agree with what Stephen says elsewhere in this thread: it
seems that this is an attempt to re-open the WG's work.  I don't think
there's more to say.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan