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 !
>>
>>
>