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

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Mon, 26 January 2015 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
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 B14741ACED3 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:27:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 4GXCHKqyxMLQ for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:27:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.infomaniak.ch (smtp3.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4077B1ACEE9 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:27:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Laurie (adsl-178-38-160-202.adslplus.ch [178.38.160.202]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp3.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0QJQvRL003849; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:26:59 +0100
From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:26:53 +0100
Message-ID: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGECODAAA.rhill@hill-a.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <54C6901C.8040602@meetinghouse.net>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/ez2Hw0a_DP3_W40f6WiPzvW7LqA>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rhill@hill-a.ch
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 19:27:20 -0000

I agree with Miles, except on one point, see below.

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of Miles
> Fidelman
> Sent: lundi, 26. janvier 2015 20:06
> To: ianaplan@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal
> development process
>
>
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:13:27PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >> meetings - and basically silent about any role of IAOC in
> formulating policy
> >> for the IETF
> > This is ridiculous.  The IAOC has no role in "formulating policy for
> > the IETF", as the documents Bernard suggested you read make perfectly
> > clear.  The IAOC is accountable to the IETF.  I don't see any reason
> > to take up the WG's time with the sort of complaint you're making if
> > you cannot even bother to attend to the plain English meaning of the
> > documents.
> >
>
> I can read just fine.  I'm pointing out that:
>
> 1. the ICG asked for a response that included attention to policy,
> legal, and contractual issues - from the IETF,

My understanding is that the response is supposed to reflect the consensus
of the global multi-stakeholder community. So the IETF, as I understand it,
is supposed to consult and take into account the views of that broad
community.

> prepared through a
> consensus process
> 2. Every step along the way, the position was stated that the WG was
> charted to only deal with technical issues, that the IAOC would address
> legal, and contractual issues - which to me are definitely policy related
> 3. When I asked, repeatedly, "so what's the process by which those
> issues would be addressed," the most recent answer was a pointer to the
> online procedures for the IAOC
>
> That is a distinct procedural gap and flaw.  I'm simply pointing it out.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>