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

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Tue, 20 January 2015 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.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 CEBAB1AD065 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:41:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 A2J3UkTGsZae for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:41:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x233.google.com (mail-qc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CEDE1A909C for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:41:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w7so9013127qcr.10 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:41:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ax5/yzepZrw5MyRrs52VJkhSUPNn6TphT9h474caNmE=; b=DozzgMEFQULRUrNcLxhs5dNfODFfEiZlIpyXrysiTLr2oqMsmdkDG1SBP0jEAy9A4/ xRFKHbWGpHvp+/Oyg4OWHFCOgtuAUfJ/2BdoWXE3SgOuR7qoj+uR7eV4E69n1lcqc17w nUDBXQz40jvZWyh+ybUkJKOKiSub0RgKWF8jWIZXCo7bUzySYa55/pwOFpL6ClyAhE3r +lsc0w5zJy/9fYDlRTN1UC885v0gWbuXYj1FQm224IVkDGpI4zU2JOMKRxI+J8Kxb2YL GpGNlZopnkK9Co2C3/13BC3NB6PIAgcAwnyH/rTHusB2/j2WwtXbXwJeylVf5oKXdxWO iocw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.96.33 with SMTP id j30mr23891367qge.92.1421732463684; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:41:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.38.68 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:41:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.38.68 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:41:03 -0800 (PST)
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.com> <CAD_dc6gqmqUnqwGA8JR=R4U=wpUhsRWZ7HNfnkripWHYGYS8vg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2ds_dC7pyN2E5VYznjHNHkho+HB6w4uUDaH+GMQn7r08sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:41:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6g7agVJY+9RsPwcxSKS+9wv7tfBsAOmm-7-=QFbqOnTFg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a976476b50d050d0ee20e
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Qceg9647DtZyujm6U5PgO8S1RtA>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
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: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 05:41:09 -0000

Hi Bernard,

I think you are missing my point which is not about this WG doing the legal
stuff as it generally makes sense for that not to be within IANAPLAN scope.
I will make a last try; my point was that indicating the principles that
the contract text should address(ref: RFP question III) is within scope of
this WG. So in addressing the request from Alissa, I expected a response in
the line of "....this WG achieved "rough" consensus not to include IPR
related issues about IANA in it's proposal response to ICG....however
beyond the IETF proposal, the IAOC is considering the IPR request proposed
by the numbers community"

Secondly I am not talking about determining if MOU weighs more than
contract because the nonlegal me believes what makes it legal or not is in
the content (a view I had shared within the numbers community but observe
there was more consensus towards using the word "contract", again that did
not make me fault the entire process as the exercise produced great outcome)

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 20 Jan 2015 04:00, "Bernard Aboba" <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Seun said:
>
> "I believe my point was not implying/expecting that this working group
> draft the contract actual text. However, I think this WG is tasked with
> indicating the expected features of the contract. The current IETF response
> to ICG does/did not include any section implying that it expect that the
> IPR on IANA be transferred from the current operator in this process."
>
> [BA] The IANAPLAN WG was never conceived of as a substitute for legal
> counsel, nor was any legal advice solicited from it.  For example, the
> IANAPLAN WG was not asked to opine on the legal enforceability of the
> IETF-ICANN MOU; there was only a discussion of the potential cost and time
> of attempting to re-negotiate it (and I believe consensus not to go there).
>
> RFC 6220 indicates clearly that the IAOC is responsible for negotiation of
> the contract with the IANA Protocol Parameter operator.  That includes
> contracting with legal counsel and working with counsel to understand the
> legal issues and potential solutions.  The IANAPLAN WG, in providing a set
> of minimum requirements as well as preferences for that activity, is
> essentially providing a "problem statement" to the IAOC.   This is very
> valuable to prevent scope (and cost) creep within the legal engagement.
> Those who have regularly worked with lawyers know that such a "problem
> statement" can be worth its weight in gold.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 19 Jan 2015 18:15, "Bernard Aboba" <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> >
>> > Seun said:
>> >
>> > "On a lighter note, it's interesting that to note that IETF who will
>> mostly be affected by those issues raised had to wait to be prompted by
>> other communities."
>> >
>> > [BA] I don't believe that this is accurate.  Under RFC 6220, the IAOC
>> owns legal and contractual issues with the IANA Protocol Parameter
>> contractor.  The chartering of the IANAPLAN WG did not change that.  The
>> issues referred to have been under active discussion within IAOC and the
>> IETF Trust all along (with legal counsel assisting).   The IANAPLAN WG has
>> only been responsible for providing a sense of priorities for that legal
>> work - a set of requirements, if you will.
>> >
>>
>> ... yes and transfer of IPR was not recognised to be on this WG list
>> until it got triggered by an external community. On another note, your
>> message above seem to imply that this WG is not tasked with preparing a
>> response to the ICG and also that the IAOC could introduce other elements
>> that did not achieve consensus within this WG. I hope I am wrong about that?
>>
>> > It is important not to confuse the "requirements" drafted by IANAPLAN
>> WG with the actual legal and contractual arrangements under development by
>> the IAOC.
>> >
>>
>> I believe my point was not implying/expecting that this working group
>> draft the contract actual text. However, I think this WG is tasked with
>> indicating the expected features of the contract. The current IETF response
>> to ICG does/did not include any section implying that it expect that the
>> IPR on IANA be transferred from the current operator in this process.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Regards
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>;
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> sent from Google nexus 4
>> >> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> >> On 19 Jan 2015 16:53, "Bernard Aboba" <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I would note that both of the concerns listed are under
>> consideration by the IAOC. Also, the proposals from the other communities
>> also include mention of both items.
>> >> >
>> >> Just to note that it's 1 of the communities(numbers) that has included
>> this; not necessarily that I agree with that but again it does not serve as
>> basis for me to fault the entire process.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> So while it is fair to say that the issues require more work,
>> >> >
>> >> On a lighter note, it's interesting that to note that IETF who will
>> mostly be affected by those issues raised had to wait to be prompted by
>> other communities.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers!
>> >>
>> >> I do not believe they are process concerns in this WG.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>;
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> After draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response was submitted to the ICG,
>> the ICG received the following comment:
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00017.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>