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

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Tue, 27 January 2015 09:30 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 D5D981A8775 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:30:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.652
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439, TVD_FINGER_02=1.215] 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 QXEBYSpqZ5HV for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:30:26 -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 DDB3E1A8738 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:30:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Timea ([156.106.245.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp3.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0R9UN0O031459; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:30:23 +0100
Message-ID: <C48DE0AC42FD41B08F1B2BB00223B003@Timea>
From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
References: <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> <20150126030945.GD77105@mx1.yitter.info> <54C5B476.6030900@meetinghouse.net> <20150126034153.GE77105@mx1.yitter.info> <54C64467.4020909@meetinghouse.net> <DCC2E578-906A-4D75-8DB8-DAD19F424391@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:30:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/l_sbKmgtMxF2BFa8JzAyJsOksTo>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
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: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:30:27 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net>;
To: "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>;
Cc: <ianaplan@ietf.org>;
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal 
development process
>
SNIP
>This does not mean that we are entirely done. Obviously there are steps 
>beyond this. One,
> there is an enhancement to make to a contract,

That assumes that there is, at present, a contract between the IETF and 
ICANN. As I've said before, it does not appear evident to me that the MoU 
between the IETF and ICANN is a contract in the legal sense of the term.

Or are you saying that the IETF's response calls for a contract to be 
established, if the present MoU turns out not to be a contract?


SNIP