Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Mon, 26 January 2015 18:27 UTC
Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603C91ACD58 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:27:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bxgrKKd-RUJM for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22d.google.com (mail-qa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1CFE1ACD66 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:27:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id n8so7993454qaq.4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:27:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=DRipKzt06rI9oIAG5h1l6dquGSIwyRqUy09TmvfqPlc=; b=tWa/jDpBDZTppTSxCMkM27OfVHniEVKFJ8oGuEMeS+/V330jzChMbn7StYZmrKuH7N qAdpvNEj73j+6FxGtaJDPQHZyH3YLgkQ234Pe4wDkpzdaRfcCzoax/MV8Qmdn5nJ6oPK eQE2x4Br1PTS4H42wCt9FSvIe9jffQLnqgqIb3sOkRu/3SebcukAaHdtpvyUrruqbbtQ rEbHFthQ6oM4VAo6toScbyM1gsPtvHhhwYc8a9WhlKl0oLbt7hBiYpT5dPPk+KGt72pj sut2LPfnNa3V0qZuNYq5iq4mxdSiYhGikk5OvvPNDtlM9O5+M6e8lLLlnxkJbixZyvhg HBXQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.115.16 with SMTP id g16mr43849233qaq.97.1422296825850; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.38.68 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.38.68 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:27:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dsqqM_LbtxDqM0_2VmNj2e96Tifj=qpa5f1b5eAoKk9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <F8FC64C8-6FC7-4672-B18B-46DF993A653A@cooperw.in> <54C091D2.9050608@gmail.com> <1F30A463-76A9-4854-952A-35C54E42D2C6@istaff.org> <CAOW+2dvd1QRC6xbDTZ6ah23HfX=K=SeXDc1kXr2NREAcy37SvQ@mail.gmail.com> <54C13630.3050601@meetinghouse.net> <54C3D305.6030705@acm.org> <CAOW+2dv874BemFi=nSTgHQNO+7DpwhrjpVizhiEVaDK_bRzg4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAD_dc6j9vb14uPiPuAqh6-N9uyzqySv=WMb6_CVGQfob1iv95g@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dsqqM_LbtxDqM0_2VmNj2e96Tifj=qpa5f1b5eAoKk9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:27:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6gO=ygL7jotyqt0w0CJBnm74Apa9R6AZT5sHHmQRgQC8w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bf1607e11f0d1050d9249ff"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/2ajno55a0v0hZOpkqJOIElB77F8>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:27:19 -0000
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 26 Jan 2015 17:16, "Bernard Aboba" <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote: > > Seun said: > > "What i think is not clear about IETF proposal is that it already indicated that it does not want to do anything about IPR, " > > [BA] I believe that the IANAPLAN WG consensus was that transfer of the IANA.org domain and associated trademarks was not a requirement for protocol parameters. > This is exactly what I also understand to be the WG outcome as reflected in the proposal. However, upon the mail from Alissa, your first response implied that the IAOC is considering the IPR issue related to iana.org. It will be good to make a distinction of what the IETF community wants to do about the IPR because the IPR in question is something that affects the 3 communities so I don't see it as what the RIR alone would say they want to donate to IETF Trust; it requires the other communities to speak the same (the RIR proposal also took note of that caveat). So my point is that if the IETF agrees with the RIR then it should also indicate it in it's proposal or at least be ready to respond when ICG comes back knocking on that particular subject. I believe discussing what to do about such issue should be within the scope of this WG and not the IAOC as you seem to imply. > I would not conclude from this that the IETF proposal ignores IPR issues. RFC 4371 deals explicitly with IPR issues (which are the responsibility of the IETF Trust, not the IANAPLAN WG). > Yes that's correct, the uniqueness of this particular IPR is that it's not property of one community but that of the 3 communities and the decision to transfer it to Trust has to be collectively achieved. It is after this WG change it's mind about it's current stand on the iana.org IPR (including when names community have similar view) that the "IETF trust" can then consider accepting the donation (which at that point is independent of this WG) Regards > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Avri said: >>> >>> "Do I understand correctly Bernard's answer to say that the IETF submission to the ICG is somehow incomplete until there is such as authoritative answer from the IAOC on how the issue would be handled. Such an understanding surprised me as I had not thought of it before, but it does not seem unreasonable. Off course I may be misunderstanding what was said." >>> >>> [BA] The IETF's submission represents a complete framework for transition of the protocol parameters - but aspects of the legal arrangements remain outstanding (as is the case for the RIR response, btw). >> >> >> >> Just to clarify, what is outstanding for RIR is the actual legal text, the RIR already indicated the features that the legal team should develop their content around. It also specified the IPR requirements (III.A.2) >> >> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-Number-Resource-Proposal.html >> >> What i think is not clear about IETF proposal is that it already indicated that it does not want to do anything about IPR, yet you seem to imply that the IAOC would indeed consider if it should (Which i think is not inline with what the proposal said) >> >> Regards >> >> >>> >>> Given the modest expectations set by the IANAPLAN WG, I don't find this particularly worrisome - there should be more than enough time before the deadline for the IAOC to get these issues dealt with. >>> >>> Avri also said: >>> >>> "I know that in the Names community work, gaining an understanding of the legal environment and the way of actually dealing with the legal points of appeals and possible future decisions to remove the function from ICANN before the crisis point, is a gating concern and part of the reason are still working on developing our response - we need legal advice before we can complete our work." >>> >>> [BA] The legal issues in the Names community are no doubt more substantial than for either protocol parameters or addressing. >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Early in the IETF process, it was indeed an issue that was discussed and identified as out of scope for the WG. I was one of those arguing that it needed to be considered. I have never been comfortable with so-called nuclear options being the first line of known defense. >>>> >>>> As a well trained follower of process, I desisted from arguing my concerns, which in this case paralleled those of others. >>>> >>>> Do I understand correctly Bernard's answer to say that the IETF submission to the ICG is somehow incomplete until there is such as authoritative answer from the IAOC on how the issue would be handled. Such an understanding surprised me as I had not thought of it before, but it does not seem unreasonable. Off course I may be misunderstanding what was said. >>>> >>>> I know that in the Names community work, gaining an understanding of the legal environment and the way of actually dealing with the legal points of appeals and possible future decisions to remove the function from ICANN before the crisis point, is a gating concern and part of the reason are still working on developing our response - we need legal advice before we can complete our work. But in that case there is no doubt that the legal aspects are in scope for the Cross community WG. >>>> >>>> Perhaps once the Names community has completed its work, and I hope it is real soon, there will be some clue that can be used on legal arrangements and appeals mechanisms by the other communities, upon recommendation from the ICG. >>>> >>>> As for whether ICG experts should be expected to understand the intricacies of the arrangements supplied by the 3 communities, I am sure that each group having picked its finest, they are certainly capable of doing so, And I beleive that as a group coordinating the puzzle of the partial responses from all communities they need to do so to figure out how to fit the 3 answers (once the have the 3) into a consistent response for NTIA. >>>> >>>> Tough job, I wish them well. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> On 22-Jan-15 12:41, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Bernard Aboba wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> John Curran said: >>>>>> >>>>>> "That's an excellent question, but even if the stated answer were "yes" >>>>>> I'm not certain its reasonable to rely (or expect) each member of the >>>>>> ICG to review the discussion in this portion of the community in order >>>>>> to obtain a thorough understanding of the arguments contrary to Richard's >>>>>> assertions of process issues... " >>>>>> >>>>>> [BA] A summary of process from authoritative parties might be useful. But it would also be useful to point out that we are talking about process concerns relating to requirements for legal work that hasn't yet been completed by an organization (the IAOC) distinct from the IANAPLAN WG. Until the legal work has been done and there are proposed contractual arrangements to analyze, we are talking about process objections to requirements for arrangements that do not yet exist, within a WG that was not chartered to handle the legal work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which, I might point out, is a significant process problem that I've had from the start. The charter of the WG was incomplete, and a good part of the IETF response was handled by other than a transparent and open process. The IETF response was simply not responsive to what the ICG asked for (IMHO). And that remains a problem. >>>>> >>>>> Miles Fidelman >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ianaplan mailing list >>>> Ianaplan@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ianaplan mailing list >>> Ianaplan@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Seun Ojedeji, >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>> alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng >>> >>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >
- [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF pro… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Jefsey
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… John C Klensin
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Dave Crocker
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… John C Klensin
- [Ianaplan] You told us not to trust you anymore [… Jefsey
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Avri Doria
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… John Curran
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Avri Doria
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Russ Housley
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Miles Fidelman
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Avri Doria
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… JFC Morfin
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Seun Ojedeji
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Richard Hill
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Jefsey
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF… JFC Morfin