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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 05/11/2014 14:22, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>> - the WG charter has excluded a bunch of topics that one would expect to
>> see in a complete response to the ICG RFP - particularly legal and
>> contractual stuff
> We are not lawyers. We have legal counsel who have served us well when
> legal documents were needed, but when we try to write down legal stuff
> ourselves we end up writing stupidities. That's why, some years ago,
> we delegated legal and contractual stuff to the IAOC, and IPR stuff
> to the IETF Trust, both of which use legal counsel as needed.
>
> I don't object to the draft saying in general terms that the IETF
> will continue to delegate legal and contractual stuff in this way.
> But beyond this, we have ample evidence from experience that, as
> engineers, we should keep our fingers out of this fire.
>
>    

My point exactly.  Given that this is a community process, the content 
of which is primarily organizational, legal, and contractual in nature;  
should not the IAOC, IETF Trust, and the lawyers be heavily involved in 
this discussion; not brought in after the fact?

Treating this proposal as an engineering issue, addressed in the way 
that we'd address engineering issues, IMHO, is broken.  There are a 
whole slew of issues that are central to this process that some wish to 
deny, others wish to ignore, others feel are out of scope, and that we 
are largely unequipped to address (yes, some of us work more in the 
policy and regulatory worlds, and some of us negotiate contracts at 
times - but we're all primarily amateurs -- at least I don't think we've 
had any lawyers in the discussion).

Again, IMHO, this will ultimately lead to an ineffective proposal to the 
ICG, and to poor results down the road (for some value of poor).

At the very least, should not the IAOC, IETF Trust, and the lawyers be 
directly informing this discussion by providing guidance, review, and 
comment to the larger group, as we move toward a final proposal?  Right 
now, we're debating things like the handling of iana.org, whether it's 
important to include reference in the proposal, and what kind of 
contractual language to use -- without benefit of direct input from 
those who are responsible for negotiating, managing, and enforcing the 
very issues that are at the heart of the proposal, and without advice of 
counsel as to wording (and clear, binding wording is as important in 
contractual matters as it is in a technical specification).


Miles Fidelman








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