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

[Miles Fidelman <[e-mail]>]

Dave Crocker 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.
>

In all fairness, IETF responded to an RFP that had specific requirements 
as to both content and process.  If the content and/or process are 
flawed, it is perfectly reasonable to protest.  It's not pretty, but it 
is legitimate.  (I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has been on one 
side or another of a bid protest.)

Miles Fidelman





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