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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 20 January 2015 04:25 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 90D0E1ACEE3 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:25:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 PyAPRUBMaJ77 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:25:13 -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 D3EE81ACEE0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.34.6] (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFCF18A031; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 04:25:11 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257)
In-Reply-To: <54BD755D.4050409@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:25:15 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4939D828-577E-440A-B852-48C581BCC9A3@anvilwalrusden.com>
References: <C172BBB7-9BA4-4BA7-848C-C7FE5B66CBF7@cooperw.in> <20150119160154.GA73402@mx1.yitter.info> <54BD755D.4050409@dcrocker.net>
To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/qBujiF72mkWNyhOqAjKVqjfal_I>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <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, 20 Jan 2015 04:25:15 -0000

The note wasn't to ICANN. Alissa told us that the CWG received it.  I wasn't trying to respond to him here.  I was noting why the complaint he made to the CWG wasn't in my view a reasonable complaint.  Since the CWG is the recipient of our work product, it seemed to me that a response was in order.  

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

>> On Jan 19, 2015, at 16:21, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>; wrote:
>> 
>> On 1/19/2015 8:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> I think Richard Hill's argument in that message contains a number of
>> faulty premises.  I disagree with most of the message.
> 
> 
> Since we all wish to be perceived as fair and diligent and thorough,
> it's tempting to want to take Richard's note to ICANN and respond to its
> substance.
> 
> However the approach he's taken is to complain about the IETF to another
> body.
> 
> And:
> 
>    1.  The IETF followed its processes.  The submission to ICANN has
> official IETF authorization.
> 
>    2.  Any objections to that process needed to be pursued within the
> IETF's extensive dispute resolution processes.
> 
>    3.  Richard was an active participant in the IETF process.
> 
> We cannot prevent Richard from taking his dissatisfaction with the
> IETF's performance to ICANN, but we can choose how we respond.
> 
> One choice I strongly recommend is to ignore his process complaints
> completely.  Responding to them gives them credence.
> 
> As for the rest, and as with all problematic criticism about the IETF, I
> also suggest waiting for some indication that the criticisms have gained
> traction with others.  Again, the more we respond to bogus complaints,
> the more credence we lend them.
> 
> d/
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan