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

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Mon, 26 January 2015 19:06 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 B6C9E1ACE6E for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:06:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 D1TdHujHLvNC for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:06:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2487D1ACE97 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:06:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27432CC1B0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:06:06 -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 3A7aJ1M1V8tw for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:06:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-173-76-229-68.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.229.68]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C17DECC158 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:06:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <54C6901C.8040602@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:06:04 -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
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <20150126024813.GB77105@mx1.yitter.info> <54C5ABCB.20000@meetinghouse.net> <20150126030945.GD77105@mx1.yitter.info> <54C5B476.6030900@meetinghouse.net> <20150126034153.GE77105@mx1.yitter.info> <CAOW+2duqxEebN0q8u2075SftYEXcaGfAHKYXZNZgwOTQaFxgTA@mail.gmail.com> <E23447D169EE488C80B2EDADF16E37F7@Timea> <54C6717F.8010009@meetinghouse.net> <F1800F1F-0FDD-4A96-85EE-25B7F181F370@vigilsec.com> <54C675B7.3020501@meetinghouse.net> <20150126172405.GD464@mx1.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20150126172405.GD464@mx1.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/DghZB9LPeVduchHRwOjNYRfmpDc>
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, 26 Jan 2015 19:06:09 -0000

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:13:27PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> meetings - and basically silent about any role of IAOC in formulating policy
>> for the IETF
> This is ridiculous.  The IAOC has no role in "formulating policy for
> the IETF", as the documents Bernard suggested you read make perfectly
> clear.  The IAOC is accountable to the IETF.  I don't see any reason
> to take up the WG's time with the sort of complaint you're making if
> you cannot even bother to attend to the plain English meaning of the
> documents.
>

I can read just fine.  I'm pointing out that:

1. the ICG asked for a response that included attention to policy, 
legal, and contractual issues - from the IETF, prepared through a 
consensus process
2. Every step along the way, the position was stated that the WG was 
charted to only deal with technical issues, that the IAOC would address 
legal, and contractual issues - which to me are definitely policy related
3. When I asked, repeatedly, "so what's the process by which those 
issues would be addressed," the most recent answer was a pointer to the 
online procedures for the IAOC

That is a distinct procedural gap and flaw.  I'm simply pointing it out.





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