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

Andrew: 
You're confusing the ICG (IANA Stewardship Coordination Group) with the names CWG (Cross-community Working Group). Alissa is the chair of the ICG, not the CWG, and the message was sent to the ICG not to the CWG.  

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sullivan
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 11:25 PM
> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
> Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal
> development process
> 
> The note wasn't to ICANN. Alissa told us that the CWG received it.  I wasn't
> trying to respond to him here.  I was noting why the complaint he made to
> the CWG wasn't in my view a reasonable complaint.  Since the CWG is the
> recipient of our work product, it seemed to me that a response was in order.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
> 
> >> On Jan 19, 2015, at 16:21, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/19/2015 8:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >> I think Richard Hill's argument in that message contains a number of
> >> faulty premises.  I disagree with most of the message.
> >
> >
> > Since we all wish to be perceived as fair and diligent and thorough,
> > it's tempting to want to take Richard's note to ICANN and respond to
> > its substance.
> >
> > However the approach he's taken is to complain about the IETF to
> > another body.
> >
> > And:
> >
> >    1.  The IETF followed its processes.  The submission to ICANN has
> > official IETF authorization.
> >
> >    2.  Any objections to that process needed to be pursued within the
> > IETF's extensive dispute resolution processes.
> >
> >    3.  Richard was an active participant in the IETF process.
> >
> > We cannot prevent Richard from taking his dissatisfaction with the
> > IETF's performance to ICANN, but we can choose how we respond.
> >
> > One choice I strongly recommend is to ignore his process complaints
> > completely.  Responding to them gives them credence.
> >
> > As for the rest, and as with all problematic criticism about the IETF,
> > I also suggest waiting for some indication that the criticisms have
> > gained traction with others.  Again, the more we respond to bogus
> > complaints, the more credence we lend them.
> >
> > d/
> > --
> > Dave Crocker
> > Brandenburg InternetWorking
> > bbiw.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ianaplan mailing list
> > Ianaplan@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan