Re: [Ianaplan] Our impossible job, was Where we're at/going forward

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

On 8/26/15 3:02 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>> The problem is that you continue to treat this proposal as three. 
>> It's not.  It's one integrated proposal.  Further, a binary decision
>> will eventually be made.  Ours is as follows: do we support it or
>> not, and why or why not?  Does the ICG have more information if we
>> simply support only our portion of the proposal?  I would say not. 
>> They gain a little information if we tell them that they haven't
>> cocked it up.  But a very little more.  We have the opportunity to
>> say more.  If we pass on that opportunity, the decision will be ceded
>> to others; and we may not like their view or their goals at all.
>
> Now I'm really confused.  If we as think the parameters and numbers
> are OK but the names are headed for trouble, what do we say in what
> capacities?

From the IETF point of view, if that trouble from the names community is
heading our way, we should express our concerns and any proposed
changes.  Even if some trouble *is* headed our way (and nobody has
really seriously argued that it is), we should perform a a risk
analysis, like with many other business decisions to determine what path
is best to take.  The level of meta-conversation in this thread has
obscured nearly all of that because nobody has actually shown a
substantial risk to us.  Perhaps that's one of the reasons most people
are okay with Leslie's text, although I myself would prefer the
alternative I sent.

Eliot