Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Wed, 05 November 2014 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mueller@syr.edu>
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 95C951A88FC for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 07:16:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.794
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.794 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] 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 gSzS39ffF0e5 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 07:16:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.syr.edu (smtp2.syr.edu [128.230.18.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7D761A889F for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 07:16:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EX13-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-04.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.134]) by smtp2.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sA5FGddU014867 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:16:40 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.134) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:16:39 -0500
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:16:39 -0500
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
Thread-Index: AQHP960u8Q3qkgXVCEGyOQLXbJCufpxPyGuAgAA0/ACAAADXAIAAAw4AgACLogCAACs6gIAAQCaAgAA80ACAAAfPgIAACgwAgAAESYCAAAOpgIAAAgIAgAAA6YCAAAWHAIAAKOGAgAASLoCAAErKAIAAeYcA///QxKA=
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:16:38 +0000
Message-ID: <631e3e3d29c843bd9c23151c63612989@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNIEOJCNAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <54594A50.4090305@meetinghouse.net> <20141105001731.GA30186@mx1.yitter.info> <54597BDB.7040305@meetinghouse.net> <5459BA98.1070006@gmail.com> <545A208A.7040304@meetinghouse.net>
In-Reply-To: <545A208A.7040304@meetinghouse.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [149.119.181.14]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52, 1.0.28, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-11-05_06:2014-11-05,2014-11-05,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1411050144
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/eBhPt1O1mGY8V7raxCUF4qbwYjY
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
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: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:16:43 -0000

Miles's argument and logic seem unassailable to me. 

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> My point exactly.  Given that this is a community process, the content of
> which is primarily organizational, legal, and contractual in nature; should not
> the IAOC, IETF Trust, and the lawyers be heavily involved in this discussion;
> not brought in after the fact?
> 
> Treating this proposal as an engineering issue, addressed in the way that
> we'd address engineering issues, IMHO, is broken.  There are a whole slew of
> issues that are central to this process that some wish to deny, others wish to
> ignore, others feel are out of scope, and that we are largely unequipped to
> address (yes, some of us work more in the policy and regulatory worlds, and
> some of us negotiate contracts at times - but we're all primarily amateurs --
> at least I don't think we've had any lawyers in the discussion).
> 
> Again, IMHO, this will ultimately lead to an ineffective proposal to the ICG,
> and to poor results down the road (for some value of poor).
> 
> At the very least, should not the IAOC, IETF Trust, and the lawyers be directly
> informing this discussion by providing guidance, review, and comment to the
> larger group, as we move toward a final proposal?  Right now, we're
> debating things like the handling of iana.org, whether it's important to
> include reference in the proposal, and what kind of contractual language to
> use -- without benefit of direct input from those who are responsible for
> negotiating, managing, and enforcing the very issues that are at the heart of
> the proposal, and without advice of counsel as to wording (and clear, binding
> wording is as important in contractual matters as it is in a technical
> specification).
> 
> 
> Miles Fidelman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan