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

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 22 January 2015 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 659ED1B29BC for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:52:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 W1gP1d_ziLqJ for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:52:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51AFC1AD366 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:52:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23EC21F2D for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:52:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:52:19 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s= mesmtp; bh=bAGyM6lKq+mcESB391Y+uBHbMTQ=; b=ZJibk4in99/2HDYHEgGNo MIMvaYlLkM6lI+ou+boSAMMfHSdxTTQP/0w89QO02ZZC4G51+H8bbIE03jTF/CkS TfB0pbboamdSd7fYxJXw5rP2AGv43i/8b7pom4fmxA9pc72xXJyq5jk81Y+3g3r/ UHMmlD7gx2LzDDf4S1zBvY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=bAGyM6lKq+mcESB391Y+uBH bMTQ=; b=Auo7uObK8+EQtblqHa05qaSitAWIRy/iwM1UX30VJKHpgHw+d4GbBuf g/jbFyxNNHVL7X0sBySbr6JcBar/SvaGlq1knKeC2MY31cBRfG/Wm+7YyDXectyH ILVka6OpS+T5YEgR5vNEelCnqkeANCsiTGpEdn7Kl6zDNVNT0KEg=
X-Sasl-enc: jk5tjVGy7HirW4QVWZghFHi6xK5YjDFrlRFA4/nHofQC 1421952739
Received: from dhcp-171-68-21-108.cisco.com (unknown [171.68.21.108]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1B330C00015; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:52:18 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <54C091D2.9050608@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:31:22 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C5278F66-7A06-4453-B35C-E3872D0153A8@cooperw.in>
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <F8FC64C8-6FC7-4672-B18B-46DF993A653A@cooperw.in> <54C091D2.9050608@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/TL11RUSM5WzpgZG0htiYNsP1ntw>
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: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:52:22 -0000

Hi Brian,

On Jan 21, 2015, at 9:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Alissa,
> 
> It would be very tedious to have to repeat on the icg forum all the
> explanations of how Richard's concern misunderstands the IETF rough
> consensus process and ignores this WG's conscious preference not
> to address hypothetical future legal issues when we already have IETF
> organs chartered to do so. Can we assume the ICG members can see these
> explanations without their being repeated?

First, the reason why I forward the ICG comments to this list is because the ICG has said that it will forward comments received to the appropriate operational community. It’s a transparency thing. No one on this list is obligated to respond in any way if they don’t want to.

Second, the ICG is aware of this mailing list and of course the archives are public. We also have a number of ICG members who are familiar with the IETF and IANAPLAN. So I think it’s safe to assume that if/when the ICG discusses this issue, they will have access to the prior context and discussions.

Alissa

> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 22/01/2015 11:59, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> There have been some follow-up messages:
>> 
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/index.html
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>