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

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Mon, 26 January 2015 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
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 772041A1B17 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:04:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 pOQ4U4EGqSHt for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:04:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B8C1A3B9F for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:04:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CE3CC126 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:04:41 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id rB-LdQ0RPhvC for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:04:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-173-76-229-68.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.229.68]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59C07CC0AC for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:04:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <54C673A6.1070809@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:04:38 -0500
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0 SeaMonkey/2.32
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <F8FC64C8-6FC7-4672-B18B-46DF993A653A@cooperw.in> <54C091D2.9050608@gmail.com> <1F30A463-76A9-4854-952A-35C54E42D2C6@istaff.org> <CAOW+2dvd1QRC6xbDTZ6ah23HfX=K=SeXDc1kXr2NREAcy37SvQ@mail.gmail.com> <54C13630.3050601@meetinghouse.net> <54C3D305.6030705@acm.org> <CAOW+2dv874BemFi=nSTgHQNO+7DpwhrjpVizhiEVaDK_bRzg4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAD_dc6j9vb14uPiPuAqh6-N9uyzqySv=WMb6_CVGQfob1iv95g@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dsqqM_LbtxDqM0_2VmNj2e96Tifj=qpa5f1b5eAoKk9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dsqqM_LbtxDqM0_2VmNj2e96Tifj=qpa5f1b5eAoKk9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/OcHPq7Akn4Orfz7WFh1Q3yWkF3Y>
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 17:04:43 -0000

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Seun said:
>
> "What i think is not clear about IETF proposal is that it already 
> indicated that it does not want to do anything about IPR,"
>
> [BA] I believe that the IANAPLAN WG consensus was that transfer of the 
> IANA.org domain and associated trademarks was not a requirement for 
> protocol parameters.  I would not conclude from this that the IETF 
> proposal ignores IPR issues. RFC 4371 deals explicitly with IPR issues 
> (which are the responsibility of the IETF Trust, not the IANAPLAN WG).

Actually, as I recall, the consensus was that there were alternatives 
and that the issues were largely out-of-scope of the WG (as scope was 
defined).  Which also raises the question of what's the process for IETF 
trust decision making, community input, and how is that reflected in the 
submission to the ICG?

Miles Fidelman
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com 
> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Bernard Aboba
>     <bernard.aboba@gmail.com <mailto:bernard.aboba@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Avri said:
>
>         "Do I understand correctly  Bernard's answer to say that the
>         IETF submission to the ICG is somehow  incomplete until there
>         is such as authoritative answer from the IAOC on how the issue
>         would be handled.  Such an understanding surprised me as I had
>         not thought of it before, but it does not seem unreasonable. 
>         Off course I may be misunderstanding what was said."
>
>         [BA] The IETF's submission represents a complete framework for
>         transition of the protocol parameters - but aspects of the
>         legal arrangements remain outstanding (as is the case for the
>         RIR response, btw).
>
>
>
>     Just to clarify, what is outstanding for RIR is the actual legal
>     text, the RIR already indicated the features that the legal team
>     should develop their content around. It also specified the IPR
>     requirements (III.A.2)
>
>     https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-Number-Resource-Proposal.html
>
>     What i think is not clear about IETF proposal is that it already
>     indicated that it does not want to do anything about IPR, yet you
>     seem to imply that the IAOC would indeed consider if it should
>     (Which i think is not inline with what the proposal said)
>
>     Regards
>
>         Given the modest expectations set by the IANAPLAN WG, I don't
>         find this particularly worrisome - there should be more than
>         enough time before the deadline for the IAOC to get these
>         issues dealt with.
>
>         Avri also said:
>
>         "I know that in the Names community work, gaining an
>         understanding of the legal environment and the way of actually
>         dealing with the legal points of appeals and possible future
>         decisions to remove the function from ICANN  before the crisis
>         point, is a gating concern and part of the reason are still
>         working on developing our response - we need legal advice
>         before we can complete our work."
>
>         [BA] The legal issues in the Names community are no doubt more
>         substantial than for either protocol parameters or addressing.
>
>         On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org
>         <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
>
>             Hi,
>
>             Early in the IETF process, it was indeed an issue that was
>             discussed and identified as out of scope for the WG.  I
>             was one of those arguing that it needed to be considered. 
>             I have never been comfortable with so-called nuclear
>             options being the first line of known defense.
>
>             As a well trained follower of process, I desisted from
>             arguing my concerns, which in this case paralleled those
>             of others.
>
>             Do I understand correctly  Bernard's answer to say that
>             the IETF submission to the ICG is somehow incomplete until
>             there is such as authoritative answer from the IAOC on how
>             the issue would be handled. Such an understanding
>             surprised me as I had not thought of it before, but it
>             does not seem unreasonable. Off course I may be
>             misunderstanding what was said.
>
>             I know that in the Names community work, gaining an
>             understanding of the legal environment and the way of
>             actually dealing with the legal points of appeals and
>             possible future decisions to remove the function from
>             ICANN  before the crisis point, is a gating concern and
>             part of the reason are still working on developing our
>             response - we need legal advice before we can complete our
>             work.  But in that case there is no doubt that the legal
>             aspects are in scope for the Cross community WG.
>
>             Perhaps once the Names community has completed its work,
>             and I hope it is real soon, there will be some clue that
>             can be used on legal arrangements and appeals mechanisms
>             by the other communities, upon recommendation from the ICG.
>
>             As for whether ICG experts should be expected to
>             understand the intricacies of the arrangements supplied by
>             the 3 communities, I am sure that each group having picked
>             its finest, they are certainly capable of doing so,  And I
>             beleive that as a group coordinating the puzzle of the
>             partial responses from all communities they need to do so
>             to figure out how to fit the 3 answers (once the have the
>             3) into a consistent response for NTIA.
>
>             Tough job, I wish them well.
>
>             avri
>
>             On 22-Jan-15 12:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>             Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>             John Curran said:
>>>
>>>             "That's an excellent question, but even if the stated
>>>             answer were "yes"
>>>             I'm not certain its reasonable to rely (or expect) each
>>>             member of the
>>>             ICG to review the discussion in this portion of the
>>>             community in order
>>>             to obtain a thorough understanding of the arguments
>>>             contrary to Richard's
>>>             assertions of process issues... "
>>>
>>>             [BA] A summary of process from authoritative parties
>>>             might be useful.  But it would also be useful to point
>>>             out that we are talking about process concerns relating
>>>             to requirements for legal work that hasn't yet been
>>>             completed by an organization (the IAOC) distinct from
>>>             the IANAPLAN WG.  Until the legal work has been done and
>>>             there are proposed contractual arrangements to analyze,
>>>             we are talking about process objections to requirements
>>>             for arrangements that do not yet exist, within a WG that
>>>             was not chartered to handle the legal work.
>>
>>             Which, I might point out, is a significant process
>>             problem that I've had from the start.  The charter of the
>>             WG was incomplete, and a good part of the IETF response
>>             was handled by other than a transparent and open process.
>>             The IETF response was simply not responsive to what the
>>             ICG asked for (IMHO).  And that remains a problem.
>>
>>             Miles Fidelman
>>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Ianaplan mailing list
>             Ianaplan@ietf.org <mailto:Ianaplan@ietf.org>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Ianaplan mailing list
>         Ianaplan@ietf.org <mailto:Ianaplan@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         /Seun Ojedeji,
>         Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>         web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>         Mobile: +2348035233535
>         //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
>         <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/
>
>             The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan


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