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

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Thu, 22 January 2015 17:41 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 7EC591ACE05 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:41:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 oqwdgv_V3coC for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:41:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9601ACE02 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:41:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3157CC0D4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:41:06 -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 YPBch0UOe4xK for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:41:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from new-host-2.home (pool-173-76-229-68.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.229.68]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37973CC0D1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:41:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <54C13630.3050601@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:41:04 -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
CC: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dvd1QRC6xbDTZ6ah23HfX=K=SeXDc1kXr2NREAcy37SvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/BzJsi7Yo7gI9IXD8Dy0_Xl8_i00>
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 17:41:08 -0000

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

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