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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Sun, 25 January 2015 20:18 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 D7F8A1A6F04 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:18:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.559
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 2gF2pnPAH36s for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:18:55 -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 A53101A6EEF for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:18:55 -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 0179B8A031 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:18:44 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:18:43 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ianaplan@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150125201843.GB76865@mx1.yitter.info>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54C3D305.6030705@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/nMxXWBWONIR0I8L_lvPDiFs2w6E>
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: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:18:57 -0000

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:14:45PM -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
> Do I understand correctly  Bernard's answer to say that the IETF
> submission to the ICG is somehow  incomplete until there is such as
> authoritative answer from the IAOC on how the issue would be handled. 

I don't know whether that's what Bernard intended, but it's not what I
understood him to mean; neither do I think it consistent with the
output if IANAPLAN.

The IAOC's job is to implement the legal arrangements for the IETF.
The IETF has spoken: it's satisfied with the existing state of
affairs, and wants the IAOC to implement that.  Moreover, the IETF in
my reading said that we do not need more legal framework than exists
at present, though it is possible that the terms that are currently
included in the IETF's legal arrangements by reference will need to be
called out explicitly.  That seems like a mere matter of transcription
to me.

Any suggestion that there is ambiguity in what the IETF decided, or
that there are details that would have material effect but that are
still to work out, is I think quite at odds with the IANAPLAN and IETF
declared consensus.  It follows from this, of course, that if the IAOC
were _unable_ to arrange for such a contract, we'd be in very deep
water.  But since both ICANN and the IETF have repeatedly stated their
comfort with the way things are, and since the way things are just
includes a bunch of terms that need to move around because of the
departure of one actor from the scene, it seems to me that we'd have a
relatively low risk that such terms are not forthcoming.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com