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

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Thu, 22 January 2015 18:06 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 2DEF41ACE8D for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:06:03 -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 Ak8e_vSIE3kq for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:06:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x233.google.com (mail-qc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EEC61ACE9E for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:05:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w7so2532777qcr.10 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:05:52 -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=3/Vtk9lgivlFrxMz9N8qY9YHtXq8rlg4tCYjPeCSxEE=; b=te0hldgBhdalDg9J7RhcmhYY+oZiB0Vk7Wf/E+jFiSES03Uv8G5FwHa8ScyA1wPZ+V tL30Soa2yvpifpakQBEqy8SZp45gdpNq5gAYG2xV7gIz+4tMVOZGchvySGTbahbGkrDC vLcNsJvmbTnx2aY3SS4qq9sXzSuUzJxHhAf1SG69I7TTcpkpgQjC2SSbObGeT1W2wdzK oJFlRNVw4DSJKUrwQZAS9WEv0JiqIlcUtsAX5AFG+nsoQpil7KY4Fsrv1fIyFrTppbZi h9vYrPp2gCNcmwb9ifBnb3z5vk9ezWORQxl73uMWWZbARAQs1Y4wXVWi2S0QUWiymXUO 1zMA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.115.16 with SMTP id g16mr4938668qaq.97.1421949952794; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:05:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.38.68 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:05:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.38.68 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:05:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dvd1QRC6xbDTZ6ah23HfX=K=SeXDc1kXr2NREAcy37SvQ@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>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:05:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6gCtQtMpNPckV=8_BjoK7Vyig3H9i3reKhoJjdYj=0Smg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf1607ed3261e050d4185df
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/42MtDxDESE88UuHRtDxQ9l02TOk>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:06:03 -0000

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 22 Jan 2015 18:25, "Bernard Aboba" <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>; 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.
>
Just to be clear using a scenario; the recently submitted numbers proposal
coordinated by the CRISP team included requirements/principle that their
agreement (contract/mou) should reflect. However the community/CRISP also
recognised that it's not it's role to draft the actual text of the contract
but that of the legal team.

>From your statement above, you seem to be implying that the IANAPLAN WG
cannot even act in a manner similar to CRISP in this context. If that is
the case then it may make adequate sense to appreciate that the working
group charter may indeed be missing a few lines as it defeat the purpose of
organising a community process if the community developed proposal can be
overruled by a few set of people (IAOC).

>
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.
>

Looks like you are implying that IAOC is actually doing a legal analysis of
the current WG proposal and will get back for to this WG for
recommendation. If that is the case then I think that is fair enough.

Thanks
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:22 PM, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>; wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> > It would be very tedious to have to repeat on the icg forum all the
>> > explanations of how Richard's concern misunderstands the IETF rough
>> > consensus process and ignores this WG's conscious preference not
>> > to address hypothetical future legal issues when we already have IETF
>> > organs chartered to do so. Can we assume the ICG members can see these
>> > explanations without their being repeated?
>>
>> 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... hence, my posting of a brief assessment
>> as I see it, and leads me also to believe that a statement from a more
>> authoritative party (e.g. the WG chairs, IESG, or the IAB) highlighting
>> the main arguments might be prudent.  There's no doubt that preparation
>> of such would be tedious, and hence the effort required to do so should
>> be weighed against the IETF's view of the importance of the task at hand.
>>
>> /John
>>
>> Disclaimer: my views alone.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>