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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 26 January 2015 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 9BE5A1A1BC3 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:09:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eEQk_Od3EKXU for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:09:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB4031A1BBF for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 19:09:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93ED68A031 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 03:09:46 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:09:45 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150126030945.GD77105@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <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> <20150125201843.GB76865@mx1.yitter.info> <c258dfbdcb3b45f3a5d239fc6c3f0246@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20150126024813.GB77105@mx1.yitter.info> <54C5ABCB.20000@meetinghouse.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54C5ABCB.20000@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/kz7VJXEgcw4dQUtw9iyAHy8O-s0>
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 03:09:49 -0000

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 09:51:55PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> 
> No... that's not crystal clear.  What's crystal clear is that the WG
> leadership, and a majority of participants, felt that it was beyond its
> charter to comment on legal and contractual issues, and didn't want to get
> into them.

I guess we disagree about this.  I will say, however, that the idea
that a WG could negotiate a contract seems to me a little optimistic.
As I understand it, that very difficulty is the reason the IETF came
up with the IAOC in the first place.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com