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

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 26 January 2015 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9641AD0C3 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:35:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p7uGuuk8SOci for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:35:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 694DD1AD0BA for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:35:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p10so13728889pdj.1 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:35:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MatTuzhnhrVBBFgjwsbCD2dho507aLBcUYi75/k+dm0=; b=Fxj9Q3wpuS44GyAJq3GWnmhyksiKdfNalvXInNAQd0Mr9W+LneCgSUhCKoFIabP6vG lDIvjWITcwlqry3xfab0rgDKT1xEA5FvptbSYlkMlbOfhTRc4zNBlcUFbk2VgVAwBsL9 BWE/WssD+9T3BOI2iOwKNXfKqvjlV7DUGLH0yh9Rhe+s3zCECuyBTg+g5F+Bbch+rg95 Dn0mQT3ZdFOqYZZ1SV4sy98h+QRrmeM6EFnYDaLpzPK87XyKwgJB5E/PmAgUB5UX0RAs ekcYlZgjfR1RE7P4V4u4Grtzd/SXOVdjBxZs1XKV1LcrqdBaOr4VA5ZjYaW7D/v4SAlw d4iw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id d16mr36708098pbu.102.1422300945680; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:73ff:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:73ff:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id pb6sm9853979pdb.93.2015. for <> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:35:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:35:44 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <E23447D169EE488C80B2EDADF16E37F7@Timea> <> <CF159A36BACD4D38A016F43F0F8CA21E@Timea>
In-Reply-To: <CF159A36BACD4D38A016F43F0F8CA21E@Timea>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:35:52 -0000

On 27/01/2015 05:12, Richard Hill wrote:
> Thank you.
> Unless I misunderstand, according to 3.4 of RFC 4017, IAOC decisions are made by IAOC members. How will the global
> multi-stakeholder community te able to influence those decisions?

That's irrelevant. The IAOC and IETF Trust are responsible to the IETF,
not to the global multi-stakeholder community.

And to say it all one more time: IF and ONLY IF new contractual and
intellectual property arrangements become necessary, THEN the IAOC and
the IETF Trust are the IETF's bodies for dealing with them. And the
WG preference was very clearly to cross that bridge ONLY IF we come to
it. Our stated preference is to continue the present arrangements that
we signed up to in March 2000, which means there would be nothing new
for the IAOC and IETF Trust to do. Why is that hard to understand?

The next WG milestone reads
"May 2015 review of other transition proposals, if needed."
That's the same "if". I'll see you then.