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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

I'd kind of suggest that a traditional IETF working group is not a 
sufficient body to take care of these sorts of issues.

We've been asked to submit a proposal for "the protocol parameters 
community" - which is being viewed being equivalent to the IETF.    
But... IETF in general, and WGs in particular, focus on technical 
matters, not matters of governance, legality, or contracts.  This seems 
to have been set up as a WG, because that's the standard IETF way of 
doing things - but... it's kind of like the old story about looking for 
one's lost keys under a lampost, because that's where the light is.

When it comes to legal, contractual, and governance matters - the IETF 
is more than it's working groups, it includes the IAB, IESG, IAOC, etc 
(as components of the IETF); the ISOC (as "parent" or whatever of the 
ISOC); and arguably the "protocol parameters community" is more than 
just the IETF.  These perspectives are reflected, at best, informally, 
in the charter and discussions of the WG.

IMHO, this continues to seem inadequate as a means for reaching and 
reflecting a consensus proposal from "the protocol parameters 
community."  Particularly, when a good portion of those taking part in 
the conversation want to avoid all but engineering issues.

Miles Fidelman

Richard Hill wrote:
> I agree with Miles. The IANA transition is not an engineering exercise. It
> is a contractual exercise.
>
> If the IETF is not the right body to take care of those sorts of issues,
> then let's say so and ask somebody else to do the job.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Miles
>> Fidelman
>> Sent: mardi, 4. novembre 2014 22:28
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re:
>> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
>>
>>
>> Peterson, Jon wrote:
>>>> Somehow, this "oh, if ICANN doesn't do the job, we'll take our ball and
>>>> move it elsewhere" seems a rather timid attitude and approach.
>>> No, it's just engineering. We're a body of engineers. If we can solve a
>>> problem by engineering rather than engaging in politics, it plays to our
>>> strengths. When we try to assert some authority over governments and
>>> corporations, then we are playing in a space where we have
>> little traction
>>> or competence and where we are likely to lose.
>>>
>>> Please stop trying to steer us there.
>>>
>> We are MORE than a body of engineers.  We are a body that promulgates
>> standards that are central to global infrastructure, and we are part of
>> a body of contractually defined relationships that define roles and
>> responsibilities for how those standards are used and implemented.
>>
>> The whole point of the NTIA transition process is to clarify, and
>> re-align some of those roles and responsibilities when the NTIA contract
>> goes away - which has very little to do with engineering, and a whole
>> lot to do with "techno-politics."
>>
>> Please stop trying to deny that, or steer us away from the reality of
>> the roles and responsibilities associated with the role the IETF plays.
>>
>> Miles Fidelman
>>
>>
>> --
>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>>


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