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

Andrew Sullivan <> Mon, 26 January 2015 02:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D856D1A1BBD for <>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:48:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.758
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QcNQprT-yzG6 for <>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:48:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5B1E1A1B8B for <>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:48:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC7DC8A031 for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 02:48:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:48:13 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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, 26 Jan 2015 02:48:18 -0000

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:50:13PM +0000, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> How does one "implement" an "existing state of affairs?" If it is existing, it does not need implementation; if it needs implementation it is not quite the existing state of affairs yet. 

I suppose it was not the most elegant way of putting it.  I was trying
to be succinct because it seemed to me that we were in peril of
revisiting a number of closed topics.  But, since you ask,

> "No new organizations or structures are required. ... However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community's expectations are met." 

this is how.  That is, we need no new organizations or structures.  I
think the WG was crystal clear that it is happy with the existing way
things work (hence "existing state of affairs").  What is changing is
that someone is leaving, and the actual current arrangements implicate
the departing party by reference.  So, IAOC needs to conclude a new
agreement that captures that moves the bits that implicate that
departing party into the agreement between IANA and IETF.

The IAOC of course has degrees of freedom to do that, but it must do
_that_.  Avri's interpretation of Bernard appeared to be suggesting
that the IAOC was in effect "finishing" the IETF's position, but it
isn't.  It's just implementing it.  The IAOC is not free to make any
substantive change to the way things work.  These are the "few new
arrangements" that may be needed.

I don't think there's anything remotely "spinny" about that
interpretation.  I can't even see how it could be controversial.



Andrew Sullivan