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

Dave Crocker <> Mon, 19 January 2015 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58431B2C95 for <>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:22:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3aj2pm8V29VB for <>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:21:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12E681ACD87 for <>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:21:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0JLLsF6014850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:21:58 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:21:33 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:21:58 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 21:22:01 -0000

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

However the approach he's taken is to complain about the IETF to another


     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.

One choice I strongly recommend is to ignore his process complaints
completely.  Responding to them gives them credence.

As for the rest, and as with all problematic criticism about the IETF, I
also suggest waiting for some indication that the criticisms have gained
traction with others.  Again, the more we respond to bogus complaints,
the more credence we lend them.

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking