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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Mon, 26 January 2015 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@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 52E591A9152 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:17:01 -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 oPMoC_riU-7c for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:16:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C14A21A8A93 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id em10so11123317wid.3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:16:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Y96TK4hF5yPsk8Xs6yb7Fb0VVyxkQjmIT/WxejG8kWU=; b=Dl/V+JcwMMsq39+93nT3pwXvFzNVgvoj/u7U3Z+31vlDJrW//jQMqQFZYEa/T/FMqv 4cRSfxiIJ8gKQxbIKJinlo5lqjEPavIHwQOzuStQbMyhBIIP2GRQWQjkV7vh1KCTSR++ 0lpRWK2iY6nvFSH2YXMB0LrDMhI4ByCrI/GdIHDCIWJrtc5QVECPbzb0LPKWYJfQcwxG rRYyhJfYwqzjS1aT9Kg2TLwYxGrtCr2Tdx0qlVEFeG4+X98iMEA9AzK5kP8UX2ri1s9p U6MSVTXTDwy2qpuow/YleJZCyLwNhSwibIFz8GYnTV5/sXf1UeOcV5g6jd+b0M2QB4Na 4RMQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.103.231 with SMTP id fz7mr33322614wib.49.1422289016341; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:16:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.91.8 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:16:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6j9vb14uPiPuAqh6-N9uyzqySv=WMb6_CVGQfob1iv95g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <F8FC64C8-6FC7-4672-B18B-46DF993A653A@cooperw.in> <54C091D2.9050608@gmail.com> <1F30A463-76A9-4854-952A-35C54E42D2C6@istaff.org> <CAOW+2dvd1QRC6xbDTZ6ah23HfX=K=SeXDc1kXr2NREAcy37SvQ@mail.gmail.com> <54C13630.3050601@meetinghouse.net> <54C3D305.6030705@acm.org> <CAOW+2dv874BemFi=nSTgHQNO+7DpwhrjpVizhiEVaDK_bRzg4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAD_dc6j9vb14uPiPuAqh6-N9uyzqySv=WMb6_CVGQfob1iv95g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 08:16:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dsqqM_LbtxDqM0_2VmNj2e96Tifj=qpa5f1b5eAoKk9Tg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04182822964c50050d9077f2
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/Vc1Hlo4WhmB63bl8SMd2QLb1cpo>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <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: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:17:01 -0000

Seun said:

"What i think is not clear about IETF proposal is that it already indicated
that it does not want to do anything about IPR, "

[BA] I believe that the IANAPLAN WG consensus was that transfer of the
IANA.org domain and associated trademarks was not a requirement for
protocol parameters.  I would not conclude from this that the IETF proposal
ignores IPR issues.  RFC 4371 deals explicitly with IPR issues (which are
the responsibility of the IETF Trust, not the IANAPLAN WG).

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> Avri said:
>>
>> "Do I understand correctly  Bernard's answer to say that the IETF
>> submission to the ICG is somehow  incomplete until there is such as
>> authoritative answer from the IAOC on how the issue would be handled.  Such
>> an understanding surprised me as I had not thought of it before, but it
>> does not seem unreasonable.  Off course I may be misunderstanding what was
>> said."
>>
>> [BA] The IETF's submission represents a complete framework for transition
>> of the protocol parameters - but aspects of the legal arrangements remain
>> outstanding (as is the case for the RIR response, btw).
>>
>
>
> Just to clarify, what is outstanding for RIR is the actual legal text, the
> RIR already indicated the features that the legal team should develop their
> content around. It also specified the IPR requirements (III.A.2)
>
>
> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-Number-Resource-Proposal.html
>
> What i think is not clear about IETF proposal is that it already indicated
> that it does not want to do anything about IPR, yet you seem to imply that
> the IAOC would indeed consider if it should (Which i think is not inline
> with what the proposal said)
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>> Given the modest expectations set by the IANAPLAN WG, I don't find this
>> particularly worrisome - there should be more than enough time before the
>> deadline for the IAOC to get these issues dealt with.
>>
>> Avri also said:
>>
>> "I know that in the Names community work, gaining an understanding of
>> the legal environment and the way of actually dealing with the legal points
>> of appeals and possible future decisions to remove the function from ICANN
>> before the crisis point, is a gating concern and part of the reason are
>> still working on developing our response - we need legal advice before we
>> can complete our work."
>>
>> [BA] The legal issues in the Names community are no doubt more
>> substantial than for either protocol parameters or addressing.
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>; wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> Early in the IETF process, it was indeed an issue that was discussed and
>>> identified as out of scope for the WG.  I was one of those arguing that it
>>> needed to be considered.  I have never been comfortable with so-called
>>> nuclear options being the first line of known defense.
>>>
>>> As a well trained follower of process, I desisted from arguing my
>>> concerns, which in this case paralleled those of others.
>>>
>>> Do I understand correctly  Bernard's answer to say that the IETF
>>> submission to the ICG is somehow  incomplete until there is such as
>>> authoritative answer from the IAOC on how the issue would be handled.  Such
>>> an understanding surprised me as I had not thought of it before, but it
>>> does not seem unreasonable.  Off course I may be misunderstanding what was
>>> said.
>>>
>>> I know that in the Names community work, gaining an understanding of the
>>> legal environment and the way of actually dealing with the legal points of
>>> appeals and possible future decisions to remove the function from ICANN
>>> before the crisis point, is a gating concern and part of the reason are
>>> still working on developing our response - we need legal advice before we
>>> can complete our work.  But in that case there is no doubt that the legal
>>> aspects are in scope for the Cross community WG.
>>>
>>> Perhaps once the Names community has completed its work, and I hope it
>>> is real soon, there will be some clue that can be used on legal
>>> arrangements and appeals mechanisms by the other communities, upon
>>> recommendation from the ICG.
>>>
>>> As for whether ICG experts should be expected to understand the
>>> intricacies of the arrangements supplied by the 3 communities, I am sure
>>> that each group having picked its finest, they are certainly capable of
>>> doing so,  And I beleive that as a group coordinating the puzzle of the
>>> partial responses from all communities they need to do so to figure out how
>>> to fit the 3 answers (once the have the 3) into a consistent response for
>>> NTIA.
>>>
>>> Tough job, I wish them well.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 22-Jan-15 12:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>
>>> Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>
>>> John Curran said:
>>>
>>> "That's an excellent question, but even if the stated answer were "yes"
>>> I'm not certain its reasonable to rely (or expect) each member of the
>>> ICG to review the discussion in this portion of the community in order
>>> to obtain a thorough understanding of the arguments contrary to
>>> Richard's
>>> assertions of process issues... "
>>>
>>> [BA] A summary of process from authoritative parties might be useful.
>>> But it would also be useful to point out that we are talking about process
>>> concerns relating to requirements for legal work that hasn't yet been
>>> completed by an organization (the IAOC) distinct from the IANAPLAN WG.
>>> Until the legal work has been done and there are proposed contractual
>>> arrangements to analyze, we are talking about process objections to
>>> requirements for arrangements that do not yet exist, within a WG that was
>>> not chartered to handle the legal work.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which, I might point out, is a significant process problem that I've had
>>> from the start.  The charter of the WG was incomplete, and a good part of
>>> the IETF response was handled by other than a transparent and open
>>> process.  The IETF response was simply not responsive to what the ICG asked
>>> for (IMHO).  And that remains a problem.
>>>
>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
>
>