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

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Mon, 26 January 2015 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
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 F07791A890E for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 05:50:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 wevntwsY7kv2 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 05:50:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502721A890C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 05:50:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0184CC123 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:50:07 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 2N8NzLeJnr1G for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:50:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-173-76-229-68.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.229.68]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31FE7CC11F for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:50:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <54C6460C.6080003@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:50:04 -0500
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0 SeaMonkey/2.32
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <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> <20150125201843.GB76865@mx1.yitter.info> <c258dfbdcb3b45f3a5d239fc6c3f0246@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20150126024813.GB77105@mx1.yitter.info> <54C5ABCB.20000@meetinghouse.net> <20150126030945.GD77105@mx1.yitter.info> <54C5B476.6030900@meetinghouse.net> <54C5C4A1.7070100@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54C5C4A1.7070100@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/38uGN81BZNJUo0RYA7wg87ucMuA>
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 13:50:11 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 26/01/2015 16:28, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 09:51:55PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>> No... that's not crystal clear.  What's crystal clear is that the WG
>>>> leadership, and a majority of participants, felt that it was beyond its
>>>> charter to comment on legal and contractual issues, and didn't want to get
>>>> into them.
>>> I guess we disagree about this.  I will say, however, that the idea
>>> that a WG could negotiate a contract seems to me a little optimistic.
>>> As I understand it, that very difficulty is the reason the IETF came
>>> up with the IAOC in the first place.
>>>
>> Well, on that later note, all I can say is that every time I get involved in a proposal effort, lots of people review the terms
>> and conditions section, and provide input to council - we don't treat it as out-of-scope.
> What Andrew said. Also, when the original IETF/ICANN MoU was negotiated, the
> first draft (which said what *we* wanted) was developed mainly as an IAB effort
> with IESG involvement, and debated in the POISSON WG (the venue for IETF
> process discussions at that time). But the legal details were negotiated
> between the IAB & IETF Chairs (me and Fred Baker) with advice from our counsel
> and the ICANN President with advice from his counsel. Today, we have the
> IAOC and its counsel for our side of that negotiation. Otherwise, there's
> really no difference; the IAOC is answerable to the IETF, just as the
> IAB & IETF Chairs were 15 years ago. We trust them to come back to the
> community if points of principle arise, but not for tweaks to legal language.
>

"Answerable to the IETF" comes back to "who is the IETF" and "who 
represents the IETF."  Obviously a working group with explicitly limited 
scope does not represent the IETF-as-a-whole.

Miles





-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra