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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Mon, 26 January 2015 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FAD1A8971 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:55:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tgImdo4pbl6A for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:55:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 535DA1A88BD for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:55:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l15so10930213wiw.4 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:55:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Ear0vM+tWDCdlgGQSYkJqeDKeYncu4B/T2UwCYq7vrQ=; b=a0CK1s7FycQHNHT1NOma882Aex54M+9MmFHvQHbuqUpSHvpA58tk83A3VDuVeafvhD Se39qeFWNZvAPgSC07MiRbgMciK9odTxd2nsVe6thH+VS6wqwvmKZeE5zkpjN6LwLXVi oMu4DYF8DvPW8ncPbR62Qlx8Pf1jLjiilGLtQ1FsAeYR3ltP/MCkSHJzZxe4KIH0De35 zINAq5PvG6q3TB7BHSmsUBA7gfzz6RObcBtV5k3LPVopcColfBc5Gbjyg6sFaGde6OB6 OWVqWD2B3DhH5L4XMiz4Q+3U1MqnLzY8VD4vWPqA97xKGbiQWQC5dqoJU18G4uldQwWg rrtA==
X-Received: by 10.180.108.202 with SMTP id hm10mr33188897wib.68.1422287708105; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:55:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.91.8 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:54:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20150126034153.GE77105@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <1F30A463-76A9-4854-952A-35C54E42D2C6@istaff.org> <CAOW+2dvd1QRC6xbDTZ6ah23HfX=K=SeXDc1kXr2NREAcy37SvQ@mail.gmail.com> <54C13630.3050601@meetinghouse.net> <54C3D305.6030705@acm.org> <20150125201843.GB76865@mx1.yitter.info> <c258dfbdcb3b45f3a5d239fc6c3f0246@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20150126024813.GB77105@mx1.yitter.info> <54C5ABCB.20000@meetinghouse.net> <20150126030945.GD77105@mx1.yitter.info> <54C5B476.6030900@meetinghouse.net> <20150126034153.GE77105@mx1.yitter.info>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:54:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOW+2duqxEebN0q8u2075SftYEXcaGfAHKYXZNZgwOTQaFxgTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3bae779c34ee050d90295a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/JMSWmtG6KqdHU5nrj8twJNaIF1c>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:55:12 -0000

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
>