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

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:28:54PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Well, on that later note, all I can say is that every time I get involved
in
> a proposal effort, lots of people review the terms and conditions section,
> and provide input to council - we don't treat it as out-of-scope."

[BA]  The IAOC has its own processes, which provide for community comment.
So just because legal arrangements are out of scope for the IANAPLAN WG
does not mean that there is no provision for review and comment.

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:28:54PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > Well, on that later note, all I can say is that every time I get
> involved in
> > a proposal effort, lots of people review the terms and conditions
> section,
> > and provide input to council - we don't treat it as out-of-scope.
>
> Do I read you correctly as suggesting that the IAOC needs input on
> terms when it makes agreements?  If so, I think that is sort of right,
> and sort of not.
>
> The IAOC is not one person, of course, so to begin with we already
> have a group of people who are reviewing one another's work.  Those
> people are appointed in different ways, so that it's not even one
> point of view that arranges the appointment.
>
> Second, the IAOC works on instruction from the IETF.  If the IAOC came
> back with some agreement that was contrary to IETF consensus, there'd
> be a big to-do.  And the chair of the IETF sits on the IAOC _ex
> officio_, which means that the interests of IETF consensus are
> formally inside the room.
>
> Third, the IAOC is exquisitely sensitive to these sorts of issues.  I
> seem to recall the IAOC asking specifically some questions around a
> knotty decision they had to make, involving some
> cost-vs.-participation trade-offs.  It doesn't happen often -- you
> really can't practically negotiate a contract with one party arriving
> with 1200 of their closest friends -- but I think the IAOC tries
> rather hard to strike the right balance (and when they mess up, boy do
> they hear about it).
>
> This is the way the IETF does it.  It's of course not perfect, and I
> can see ways in which, were one inclined to think that processes can
> be written to ensure nothing bad can happen, one would want to alter
> the approach we're using.  I happen not to believe in processes to
> that degree, and prefer an arrangement in which the community review
> of results (coupled with the logical possibility of recall) sends
> adequate feedback to a body of people who have in the past shown
> themselves to use sound judgement.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>