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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Thu, 22 January 2015 17:25 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 A03751ACD2D for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:25:17 -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 CN8oQhfZIdoD for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B8341ACDB1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:23:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id u56so3101012wes.0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:23:53 -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=+fuBAeFPq6UUed5SIO0qx/f7iLCLWJk5Inbce2jD4eo=; b=iFWwtvR60ETxzVtf5doTOI7Mtsd/IZ53uSfqEx609Sbw5aMR6eIHGD0exwCp9iaNs2 Gw4IOqKLTPN+xwgZ5Bdvf+rVZIEg9ahIPa++khnt+hwqdOhCJ2/hNekjg92MQh4Yl3LG HkAmDiVpZGxRx4gGdbcl3mNgxK/UUhNAE6q2fkTI913KcfwY3rmr8gw42NLRDJMp+Ke4 yIlw+8zGMcsHyok29M1N4jE7aLUxKivyTsLXTX1aSGBPOIejYj5ZahenDgeUX5kNRQ9x +JHjmNPPm/piaoEbAprYUmWMCrdfWrB7ktJwc6MzJKHvYbaNx6QfWsVhfTckgyIyYPei +xgw==
X-Received: by 10.180.107.228 with SMTP id hf4mr7188195wib.47.1421947422556; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:23:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.91.8 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:23:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1F30A463-76A9-4854-952A-35C54E42D2C6@istaff.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>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:23:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dvd1QRC6xbDTZ6ah23HfX=K=SeXDc1kXr2NREAcy37SvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba7eb02c849050d40ef1e
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/pAI_Xxqj3JrJP-ZRmulO9CHHePo>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:25:17 -0000

John Curran said:

"That's an excellent question, but even if the stated answer were "yes"
I'm not certain its reasonable to rely (or expect) each member of the
ICG to review the discussion in this portion of the community in order
to obtain a thorough understanding of the arguments contrary to Richard's
assertions of process issues... "

[BA] A summary of process from authoritative parties might be useful.  But
it would also be useful to point out that we are talking about process
concerns relating to requirements for legal work that hasn't yet been
completed by an organization (the IAOC) distinct from the IANAPLAN WG.
Until the legal work has been done and there are proposed contractual
arrangements to analyze, we are talking about process objections to
requirements for arrangements that do not yet exist, within a WG that was
not chartered to handle the legal work.



On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:22 PM, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>; wrote:

> On Jan 21, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
> > It would be very tedious to have to repeat on the icg forum all the
> > explanations of how Richard's concern misunderstands the IETF rough
> > consensus process and ignores this WG's conscious preference not
> > to address hypothetical future legal issues when we already have IETF
> > organs chartered to do so. Can we assume the ICG members can see these
> > explanations without their being repeated?
>
> That's an excellent question, but even if the stated answer were "yes"
> I'm not certain its reasonable to rely (or expect) each member of the
> ICG to review the discussion in this portion of the community in order
> to obtain a thorough understanding of the arguments contrary to Richard's
> assertions of process issues... hence, my posting of a brief assessment
> as I see it, and leads me also to believe that a statement from a more
> authoritative party (e.g. the WG chairs, IESG, or the IAB) highlighting
> the main arguments might be prudent.  There's no doubt that preparation
> of such would be tedious, and hence the effort required to do so should
> be weighed against the IETF's view of the importance of the task at hand.
>
> /John
>
> Disclaimer: my views alone.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>