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

I'm sorry. You're quite right that I meant ICG not CWG.  (Indeed, the reason "CWG" appeared at all was because when I first typed the message, I said "ICG and not CWG", then to make it shorter I went back and removed that and replaced the wrong initials. What a dope.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan 
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

> On Jan 19, 2015, at 23:43, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> Andrew: 
> You're confusing the ICG (IANA Stewardship Coordination Group) with the names CWG (Cross-community Working Group). Alissa is the chair of the ICG, not the CWG, and the message was sent to the ICG not to the CWG.  
> 
> --MM
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
>> Sullivan
>> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 11:25 PM
>> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
>> Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org
>> Subject: 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
>> Ianaplan@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan