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

Thanks for this Jari, it's helpful summary

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 27 Jan 2015 01:27, "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

> I’d like to suggest a constructive way forward.
>
> First, I think we should observe that the ICG process put the planning and
> proposal efforts on purpose into the community processes. Those are the
> processes that we run. They are probably not perfect, they are certainly
> not the only possible ones, but they are processes that have existed and
> evolved for decades. The IANA transition is not an opportunity to redefine
> these processes.
>
> Second, the community has had a very clear opinion about matters, and
> re-opening discussions is not good practice. As usual, there are some issue
> where agreement was not universal. Disagreement with otherwise broad
> consensus is not grounds for re-opening a discussion.
>
> Third, I want everyone to focus on the concept that we’ve completed a step
> but that is not the last one. Among other things, the transition might
> involve some contract-termination/negotiation/renegotiation. And even if it
> would be very convenient, even IETF consensus doesn’t allow us to sign
> stuff in the name of other organisations :-) Or resolve conflicts between
> the three community proposals. So I would suggest that we stick to our
> clear direction from the WG, sit back, and see what these additional steps
> will bring. We will see updates as ICG, IAOC, and others have something to
> say, and any changes of direction will obviously need community feedback.
>
> Fourth, I wanted to go a bit back to the original e-mail that started this
> thread (finally!). As noted above, I think it would be inappropriate to
> start redefining the IETF process, and I think we’ve provided far more
> explanation about where we are and why than we’ve done in the approval
> process of most other IETF documents. One of the features of the IETF
> process is the expectation that most participants usually track the
> development of the community opinion, and conclusions are usually
> understood even before they are formally made. And when those conclusions
> get made, they can be brief, as the full discussion is visible on the
> mailing list archive.
>
> Yet, I have been talking to Milton and he has a point about communities
> understanding their own process well, but it being more difficult for
> newcomers, and in particular, complete outsiders that view the events
> later. I’d like to suggest that we produce an informal explanation of the
> process that helps provide visibility to people at large about what
> happened in the development of the IETF proposal from IANAPLAN WG. This is
> not a rerun of the process, an official document, or an opportunity to
> re-open discussions, but I think it would help us in the coming months as
> more people will be asking about our proposals. I’ll work with the chairs
> to produce that.
>
> Jari
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>