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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Mon, 26 January 2015 15:50 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 664551A90E5 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:50:06 -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 xlJ0tgNtvLSX for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:50:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2F0B1A90D7 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:49:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id m14so9803647wev.11 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:49:42 -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=78DyZiRgXcp+rQLfjnM0J4TYKsW6AhROeuSP0j1B4yg=; b=rUHewQNMnz8HUls/GIaB6OuiqQObAc5TyVbdfoWqTGA48btDUugBjMsuPwOpJoYfvm etMMpTW3FK5nWUG+rAl35LiQwWC+EWk+hSGa6kIwEp+5VxM0SHJQ5KI4Cj1AZ4nrUVuw aaDqTSavy+3jbTS1U8fp9yoD8p/8Zx01LQMJgz0bVoePnwmtWhpVMAzyUSU2QwSbmujM wRrUwRaQUdHYJenYTw9IvwxS8cvSH2MnmOBkcD63e+9QbIHcV6HaSkQQEtPm2QD5tuvd 2aLEVTWs1r4YDMw19a6knv/5XO74Igk1GkhbjxzPWTexEeYjYT58sDScija4/zr9YuFD GUow==
X-Received: by 10.194.190.39 with SMTP id gn7mr10388200wjc.30.1422287374059; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:49:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.91.8 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:49:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54C3D305.6030705@acm.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> <CAOW+2dvd1QRC6xbDTZ6ah23HfX=K=SeXDc1kXr2NREAcy37SvQ@mail.gmail.com> <54C13630.3050601@meetinghouse.net> <54C3D305.6030705@acm.org>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:49:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dv874BemFi=nSTgHQNO+7DpwhrjpVizhiEVaDK_bRzg4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb0406eb31064050d9015ae
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/qYUqB-fk9K3mPGdeHXc3IMxfW54>
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: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:50:06 -0000

Avri said:

"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.  Such
an understanding surprised me as I had not thought of it before, but it
does not seem unreasonable.  Off course I may be misunderstanding what was
said."

[BA] The IETF's submission represents a complete framework for transition
of the protocol parameters - but aspects of the legal arrangements remain
outstanding (as is the case for the RIR response, btw).  Given the modest
expectations set by the IANAPLAN WG, I don't find this particularly
worrisome - there should be more than enough time before the deadline for
the IAOC to get these issues dealt with.

Avri also said:

"I know that in the Names community work, gaining an understanding of the
legal environment and the way of actually dealing with the legal points of
appeals and possible future decisions to remove the function from ICANN
before the crisis point, is a gating concern and part of the reason are
still working on developing our response - we need legal advice before we
can complete our work."

[BA] The legal issues in the Names community are no doubt more substantial
than for either protocol parameters or addressing.

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>; wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> Early in the IETF process, it was indeed an issue that was discussed and
> identified as out of scope for the WG.  I was one of those arguing that it
> needed to be considered.  I have never been comfortable with so-called
> nuclear options being the first line of known defense.
>
> As a well trained follower of process, I desisted from arguing my
> concerns, which in this case paralleled those of others.
>
> 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.  Such
> an understanding surprised me as I had not thought of it before, but it
> does not seem unreasonable.  Off course I may be misunderstanding what was
> said.
>
> I know that in the Names community work, gaining an understanding of the
> legal environment and the way of actually dealing with the legal points of
> appeals and possible future decisions to remove the function from ICANN
> before the crisis point, is a gating concern and part of the reason are
> still working on developing our response - we need legal advice before we
> can complete our work.  But in that case there is no doubt that the legal
> aspects are in scope for the Cross community WG.
>
> Perhaps once the Names community has completed its work, and I hope it is
> real soon, there will be some clue that can be used on legal arrangements
> and appeals mechanisms by the other communities, upon recommendation from
> the ICG.
>
> As for whether ICG experts should be expected to understand the
> intricacies of the arrangements supplied by the 3 communities, I am sure
> that each group having picked its finest, they are certainly capable of
> doing so,  And I beleive that as a group coordinating the puzzle of the
> partial responses from all communities they need to do so to figure out how
> to fit the 3 answers (once the have the 3) into a consistent response for
> NTIA.
>
> Tough job, I wish them well.
>
> avri
>
> On 22-Jan-15 12:41, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Which, I might point out, is a significant process problem that I've had
> from the start.  The charter of the WG was incomplete, and a good part of
> the IETF response was handled by other than a transparent and open
> process.  The IETF response was simply not responsive to what the ICG asked
> for (IMHO).  And that remains a problem.
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>