Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Peterson, Jon wrote:
>> As I see it, either:
>>
>> a. this working group has to overtly address issues, and recruit
>> experience, that are not normally within IETF WG purview, or,
>>
>> b. we need to have some OTHER, clearly defined, open, consensus process
>> for addressing this set of issues; that includes strong representation
> >from those with governance, regulatory, legal, and contractual matters
>> in the Internet context (starting with the IAB, IAOC, IETF trust, and
>> ISOC)
>>
>>
>> Otherwise, IMHO, IETF is not carrying the water in responding to the
>> RFP; and more substantively, risks undesirable outcomes in a post-NTIA
>> world.
> We were asked to reply to the ICG's questions as the IETF, not the
> something-other-than-the-IETF. Many of us wear other hats or participate
> in other bodies in the community. But the response that is going to come
> out of the IETF has to derive from the IETF's processes. Changing what the
> IETF is or how it works to reply to this questionnaire would totally
> defeat the purpose - only in that case would we be failing to carry the
> water, I thnk. The ICG is asking plenty of other bodies with different
> mandates what other perspectives are, which includes the kind of expertise
> you cite here.
>
> So who gets to say what the IETF is? Because the IETF has no concept of
> membership, anyone can join a list and advocate that "we" should do, or
> "we" should be, this or that, even if they've never written an RFC, served
> as a working group chair, or (apropos the topic today) registered a
> protocol parameter. Even people who work primarily in bodies that directly
> compete with us, like say the ITU-T, can walk in and opine on what "we"
> should do here at the IETF. "Our" input comes from our partner
> organizations, and from people completely out of left field, and even from
> disgruntled former members of our leadership. And all of this input comes
> from "us," as "we" are self-selecting.
>
> I think the IETF likes it this way, because sometimes the best ideas come
> from unexpected sources. But to Suzanne's point, consensus here is shaped
> by our shared understanding of our processes and to some degree our
> people. It is the consensus of this group that will, and should, represent
> the IETF's response to this questionnaire. If you feel input to the ICG
> should come from other sources or contributors who don't self-select as
> IETFers, then that input isn't the IETF's input. It isn't "us."
>
>
> Jon Peterson
> Neustar, Inc.

Yes, but the IETF is MORE than the WG and RFC processes.  The question 
is, how does the IETF address issues that go beyond technical ones?



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