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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 25 January 2015 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885301A0065 for <>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:58:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VWO16edOyLxe for <>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:58:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FB321A000C for <>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:58:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id fa1so7995887pad.8 for <>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:58:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6hHNtQtsV7YhjXP3CrfqisI5hqbJIjsuhwcxBrhFevw=; b=qgKDt3b7na5kph7RpztseA8pvSCGKV+45kNEucCq3doYCYzo7XWKXT4LqKDKyxIFtr 5voazQ/eL+zAUvbUbY064MiB4AN2whh5RlQiV5Wmxd3Bzsg5rVTqTGsC3EQGJhlxNLXp NJjZ9WbBP0e1MOKJOo5QpKI19bNqSzQF8ye5RDD/TqLrUNBltY6nmcnB3oGsSw9qJTBH MFucdgonN7buSp8Vyo5Vy9PdTQMT9YZQFVmiT+sEGfySDyYgjf0HFTnml5npVzzA17Zq odCI2XfxpMcer+GnOROdQgcQCCjI8HEvbLCv46EzCewuBEQbZdArwhqTN+19rD9/PIk/ u1ig==
X-Received: by with SMTP id te7mr28927300pbc.129.1422223117887; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:58:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id vk4sm8023509pbc.74.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:58:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:58:33 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Sullivan <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:58:40 -0000

On 26/01/2015 09:18, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:14:45PM -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 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. 
> I don't know whether that's what Bernard intended, but it's not what I
> understood him to mean; neither do I think it consistent with the
> output if IANAPLAN.
> The IAOC's job is to implement the legal arrangements for the IETF.
> The IETF has spoken: it's satisfied with the existing state of
> affairs, and wants the IAOC to implement that.  Moreover, the IETF in
> my reading said that we do not need more legal framework than exists
> at present, though it is possible that the terms that are currently
> included in the IETF's legal arrangements by reference will need to be
> called out explicitly.  That seems like a mere matter of transcription
> to me.
> Any suggestion that there is ambiguity in what the IETF decided, or
> that there are details that would have material effect but that are
> still to work out, is I think quite at odds with the IANAPLAN and IETF
> declared consensus.  It follows from this, of course, that if the IAOC
> were _unable_ to arrange for such a contract, we'd be in very deep
> water.  But since both ICANN and the IETF have repeatedly stated their
> comfort with the way things are, and since the way things are just
> includes a bunch of terms that need to move around because of the
> departure of one actor from the scene, it seems to me that we'd have a
> relatively low risk that such terms are not forthcoming.

I think that's spot on, and to me it's quite clear in the IETF document
that the rough consensus was not to delve into these matters at this
time (see the paragraph starting "Over the course of the development
of the document, several suggestions were raised that did not enjoy
sufficient support to be included"). All the IESG has done on this
matter is to agree with the WG Chairs' judgment of rough consensus.
That is standard IETF process.