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

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Mon, 26 January 2015 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
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 310E71A1BBF for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:52:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 S3yqwwpS0qjJ for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6886E1A1BA3 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 18:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9695ACC0FE for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:51:58 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Jv6x+iP57G1w for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:51:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-173-76-229-68.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.229.68]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30F3BCC0FA for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:51:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <54C5ABCB.20000@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:51:55 -0500
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/35.0 SeaMonkey/2.32
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <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>
In-Reply-To: <20150126024813.GB77105@mx1.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/mTYRTkYZqlD79g26-ibb2L72VX8>
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 02:52:01 -0000

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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.

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.

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra