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

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