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

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Mon, 19 January 2015 16:31 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 E01B81B2AEC for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:31:51 -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 wROMHfWy_NMc for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22e.google.com (mail-qg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB9B91B2ACC for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:31:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id i50so1675125qgf.5 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:31:49 -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=fBAyQLZj0h8va/b30RbaGnXkg5EuWndNruifXiTmnqY=; b=vzB3bG6DPCnuZC1pk0p4ikh8AXoQbY9h7/Oy/3IQrT+Acuk0hG3A3JvfPz4UfyT6Py LRiwIjO3pihGIlkpXN9ddEgXsxZo3kE7Ca609Z5Jwb68AixKBuBbc3ERgRzPRZaGh9a7 wI/6LUpqeEqNldmPvGTMPIQKhxViXd/9LjOyV1k6Z8hZl5t5JNwQv51bWVSbSO5zSyNV yvU9RDiGf0hKx27Q9ZJ7BRFYcZvTAt60E8pchDWTysCnGODmG1fyh7opPhNug74+c98e QNtn2VMgiS4Gt4eMuA0zOs5frxj9Hs6nYFtTwGfW8oPZxBKtuu4BBwuDkuQiqW0oXrof O1PA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.115.16 with SMTP id g16mr17226466qaq.97.1421685109059; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:31:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.38.68 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:31:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.38.68 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:31:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8B1EC865-AD1F-4165-8C3A-258BA18C4823@gmail.com>
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <8B1EC865-AD1F-4165-8C3A-258BA18C4823@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:31:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6j_762J_6wRiFt1Fx3mgLGJ5Q+p1p58eMOtf7Pt6F1GWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf1607ee87691050d03dbf1
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/A3Gle4LRlrMxzSI6jbF0qxAkbAk>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
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, 19 Jan 2015 16:31:52 -0000

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Jan 2015 16:53, "Bernard Aboba" <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
> I would note that both of the concerns listed are under consideration by
the IAOC. Also, the proposals from the other communities also include
mention of both items.
>
Just to note that it's 1 of the communities(numbers) that has included
this; not necessarily that I agree with that but again it does not serve as
basis for me to fault the entire process.

>
So while it is fair to say that the issues require more work,
>
On a lighter note, it's interesting that to note that IETF who will mostly
be affected by those issues raised had to wait to be prompted by other
communities.

Cheers!

I do not believe they are process concerns in this WG.
>
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>; wrote:
>
>> After draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response was submitted to the ICG, the ICG
received the following comment:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00017.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>