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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

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