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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net