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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Mon, 19 January 2015 17:15 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 78B011B2B6A for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:15:23 -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 R8U-LYXjGx_W for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:15:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F0EC1B2B61 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:15:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id u56so32616572wes.2 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:15:10 -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=yTqgO1RMpDv0HM951j54Jaho0jIA4XhuxVpwIbMw7xw=; b=aZEwANpo1ljiQXjNxpGlQVmenPmYpOXKXwsVvZkoMxNa+RI71dSzwbKjHlK5osvT1Q QSV7z0XWHcvYkF4oEVAuBwsHK89lCwACGniWftR+Y+Dmp8r+CVLwC2UtQm7gJQlQfXPA K27DgcmCeirEzrX/LXlGlCuYbGoDU/2zJSeya1tq2nrmiIhGZ1pd5ZHVrOkRsJINMXY1 YqISAff0s0aoli+9ogNWdm2uiqEWTZWRTYbijcuTPImWMjF9fPLixVnwYk0m/oKwLSQ0 y6JxPgHPJDvsniliQuWNLQDKAsNStEj7wrsORyMQ3TYB81EeQpIlfSoLg8GlzWtzOO3h Rd1Q==
X-Received: by 10.180.76.228 with SMTP id n4mr37299398wiw.45.1421687710713; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:15:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.91.65 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6j_762J_6wRiFt1Fx3mgLGJ5Q+p1p58eMOtf7Pt6F1GWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <8B1EC865-AD1F-4165-8C3A-258BA18C4823@gmail.com> <CAD_dc6j_762J_6wRiFt1Fx3mgLGJ5Q+p1p58eMOtf7Pt6F1GWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:14:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dtbq0WFjnYuKk-9aQU-SMDGhxvV4etTYj74m7feeVtVbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7b0cfa8b7a050d047695
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/ic_Ah-uj17r-mX2hjjxm0LSlSOU>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
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, 19 Jan 2015 17:15:28 -0000

Seun said:

"On a lighter note, it's interesting that to note that IETF who will mostly
be affected by those issues raised had to wait to be prompted by other
communities."

[BA] I don't believe that this is accurate.  Under RFC 6220, the IAOC owns
legal and contractual issues with the IANA Protocol Parameter contractor.
The chartering of the IANAPLAN WG did not change that.  The issues referred
to have been under active discussion within IAOC and the IETF Trust all
along (with legal counsel assisting).   The IANAPLAN WG has only been
responsible for providing a sense of priorities for that legal work - a set
of requirements, if you will.

It is important not to confuse the "requirements" drafted by IANAPLAN WG
with the actual legal and contractual arrangements under development by the
IAOC.





On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 19 Jan 2015 16:53, "Bernard Aboba" <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>; wrote:
> >
> > I would note that both of the concerns listed are under consideration by
> the IAOC. Also, the proposals from the other communities also include
> mention of both items.
> >
> Just to note that it's 1 of the communities(numbers) that has included
> this; not necessarily that I agree with that but again it does not serve as
> basis for me to fault the entire process.
>
> >
> So while it is fair to say that the issues require more work,
> >
> On a lighter note, it's interesting that to note that IETF who will mostly
> be affected by those issues raised had to wait to be prompted by other
> communities.
>
> Cheers!
>
> I do not believe they are process concerns in this WG.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 19, 2015, at 6:33 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>; wrote:
> >
> >> After draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response was submitted to the ICG, the
> ICG received the following comment:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00017.html
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> 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
> >
>