Re: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 25 August 2015 06:05 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 F05C61ACEC3 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 8kyoxL6poaT0 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 697741ACE7D for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2875; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440482720; x=1441692320; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=0N+E030XUri2k+lw7BlcLJFFVItqL6bKka/3n13QD+k=; b=RBYNeA3Mc7ixGKCZhvVI+j4ne1cfzDOB8FDeH/ryQhe8jTYnWfe8ymD0 xeyWuiaJSukP2tzi71/0vTjUxft2rfs3AnceNkn9UQ0BJFFDvfX0olrGz NQanrWMKy4FwH9Ysk0fkxIjwF1/ZBsof9fxbrldDqtPJT/8aStpSR/Gra g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ALAwBzBNxV/xbLJq1dhFiDJbpbCodyAoFmFAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQEBBCNLCwwECw4DBAEBAQkeAwICDwI1CQgGAQwGAgEBiCqyJZUeAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4tXhQoHBoJjgUMBBJU0gkCBXIhWgUqEMIJ5I5E5JoQAPDOCTAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,744,1432598400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="611168128"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2015 06:05:18 +0000
Received: from [10.61.162.49] ([10.61.162.49]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7P65HwI030245; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 06:05:17 GMT
To: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>, "'Leslie Daigle (TCE)'" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, 'Marc Blanchet' <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
References: <55DBFC39.5000701@cisco.com> <003201d0defb$b0df0db0$129d2910$@ch>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <55DC059C.60807@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:05:16 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <003201d0defb$b0df0db0$129d2910$@ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wp4Q49vDHKhgg9I5lHOoP9RTmtuVI0RtB"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/pk3XiG3fCMgmCk-8Mk_h05SF95w>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 25 Aug 2015 06:05:21 -0000


On 8/25/15 8:02 AM, Richard Hill wrote:
> Please see inline below.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Richard
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eliot
>> Lear
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 07:25
>> To: Leslie Daigle (TCE); Marc Blanchet
>> Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Ianaplan] on considering consensus
>>
>> Hi Leslie & Marc,
>>
>> I realize I'm being a bit of a pain on this one and I am sorry this
>> weights on you two, but...  I have two concerns about the text that you
>> put out as a proposed edit:
>>
>> 1.  The first is that apart from saying that some haven't read the
>> proposal, Richard hasn't actually raised a substantial objection that
>> we can discuss. 
> I'm sure that several people on this list have consulted the ICG comments web site and have seen my substantive objections to the ICG proposal.
>
> I don't see how it would be productive to use this list to open discussion on the full proposal, because much of that discussion would concern issues relating to domain names and ICANN accountability that do not seem to me to be of much concern to the IETF as a standards-making body. 

And so we would in fact have no concerns from the  IETF perspective.
>
>> Richard also raised a process issue that I believe
>> Andrew dispensed with.
> But I disagree that Andrew has dispensed with it.

That is a charter issue for a chair, then, to decide.  Not the WG as a
whole.
>> 2.  While we do confirm consensus in mailing lists, I would just ask
>> that you not forget the 15 or so people who took the time to
>> participate in the interim meeting and worked to come to unanimous
>> agreement on the previous text.
>>
>> As such, I would ask that we revert to the text agreed to by the
>> interim.
> I maintain my objection to that text.

But that's meaningless when it lacks substance.

Eliot