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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 21 January 2015 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 860DA1A1AD2 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:30:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 7AjuxyNULK4v for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04F7A1A1AC2 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1YDxEF-000JKu-0l; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:29:59 -0500
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:29:53 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <081020B9508A6D83480B48CF@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2ds_dC7pyN2E5VYznjHNHkho+HB6w4uUDaH+GMQn7r08sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <8B1EC865-AD1F-4165-8C3A-258BA18C4823@gmail.com> <CAD_dc6j_762J_6wRiFt1Fx3mgLGJ5Q+p1p58eMOtf7Pt6F1GWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dtbq0WFjnYuKk-9aQU-SMDGhxvV4etTYj74m7feeVtVbQ@mail.gmail.c om> <CAD_dc6gqmqUnqwGA8JR=R4U=wpUhsRWZ7HNfnkripWHYGYS8vg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2ds_dC7pyN2E5VYznjHNHkho+HB6w4uUDaH+GMQn7r08sg@mail.gmail.c om>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/MOwvJQgyiaMy9VMiGsIm37fJEk4>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
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: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:30:02 -0000


--On Monday, January 19, 2015 18:59 -0800 Bernard Aboba
<bernard.aboba@gmail.com>; wrote:

>...
> However, if the IAOC working with counsel finds additional
> concerns that need to be addressed, or if other issues arise
> in the context of ICG discussion, they are free to address
> them.

They are, however, accountable to the IETF community about the
existence of those requirements/ concerns.  Going back to my
earlier summary and comments, there is a difference between the
IETF Trust being asked by some collection of outside parties to
add an additional domain name or trademark to the IPR that they
are holding and the IAOC concluding that demanding or trying to
negotiate for that name is part of "a concern that needs to be
addressed".

At least IMO, the former is clearly within the authority of the
IETF Trust even though they have set the precedent of asking the
community for comment before they release trademarks.    By
contrast, if the IAOC came to the conclusion that they needed
control of a domain name or more legal authority (and presumably
obligations) than they have needed before, I'd expect them to
explain that to the community and seek approval, especially
given the earlier discussions in this WG that I summarized a few
days ago.   

Again IMO, none of this has anything to do with Richard's
complaint.  The issue there seems to be very simply a situation
in which he asked for some things, couldn't persuade the WG that
they were important, and is now trying to turn his
dissatisfaction with that outcome into a process complaint.

    john