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

[Avri Doria <[e-mail]>]

Hi

Thanks for the clarification.

avri

On 26-Jan-15 10:49, Bernard Aboba 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).  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 <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>