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

[Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]>]

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Jan 2015 18:15, "Bernard Aboba" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Seun said:
>
> "On a lighter note, it's interesting that to note that IETF who will
mostly be affected by those issues raised had to wait to be prompted by
other communities."
>
> [BA] I don't believe that this is accurate.  Under RFC 6220, the IAOC
owns legal and contractual issues with the IANA Protocol Parameter
contractor.  The chartering of the IANAPLAN WG did not change that.  The
issues referred to have been under active discussion within IAOC and the
IETF Trust all along (with legal counsel assisting).   The IANAPLAN WG has
only been responsible for providing a sense of priorities for that legal
work - a set of requirements, if you will.
>

... yes and transfer of IPR was not recognised to be on this WG list until
it got triggered by an external community. On another note, your message
above seem to imply that this WG is not tasked with preparing a response to
the ICG and also that the IAOC could introduce other elements that did not
achieve consensus within this WG. I hope I am wrong about that?

> It is important not to confuse the "requirements" drafted by IANAPLAN WG
with the actual legal and contractual arrangements under development by the
IAOC.
>

I believe my point was not implying/expecting that this working group draft
the contract actual text. However, I think this WG is tasked with
indicating the expected features of the contract. The current IETF response
to ICG does/did not include any section implying that it expect that the
IPR on IANA be transferred from the current operator in this process.

Thanks.

Regards
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Seun Ojedeji <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>>
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 19 Jan 2015 16:53, "Bernard Aboba" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I would note that both of the concerns listed are under consideration
by the IAOC. Also, the proposals from the other communities also include
mention of both items.
>> >
>> Just to note that it's 1 of the communities(numbers) that has included
this; not necessarily that I agree with that but again it does not serve as
basis for me to fault the entire process.
>>
>> >
>> So while it is fair to say that the issues require more work,
>> >
>> On a lighter note, it's interesting that to note that IETF who will
mostly be affected by those issues raised had to wait to be prompted by
other communities.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> I do not believe they are process concerns in this WG.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> After draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response was submitted to the ICG, the
ICG received the following comment:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00017.html
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >> Ianaplan mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Ianaplan mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>> >
>
>