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

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Mon, 19 January 2015 21:38 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 B3FB21B2C95 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:38:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 GnfvxERi8mIP for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:38:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D53E1B2C9C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:38:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646ADCC09C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:38:41 -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 zpU+kTmqrsbB for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:38:40 -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 0B7B8CC09B for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:38:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <54BD795F.9030705@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:38:39 -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
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <20150119160154.GA73402@mx1.yitter.info> <54BD755D.4050409@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <54BD755D.4050409@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Od6gxoSIS3VVZSjue4yH3KZL8UM>
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, 19 Jan 2015 21:38:43 -0000

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