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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

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