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

Avri Doria <> Sat, 24 January 2015 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421701A8A46 for <>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:14:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.466
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZZzpNjNIfKm9 for <>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3C51A8A3A for <>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0OHEm0j023550 for <>; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:14:48 -0500
Received: (qmail 26673 invoked by uid 0); 24 Jan 2015 17:14:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( by 0 with ESMTPA; 24 Jan 2015 17:14:47 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:14:45 -0500
From: Avri Doria <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020204020607030709080801"
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150124-0, 01/24/2015), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 17:14:52 -0000


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.


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