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

"Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> Tue, 27 January 2015 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rhill@hill-a.ch>
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 8E74B1A8738 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:25:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439] 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 6Jl67NH7SIXE for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:25:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.infomaniak.ch (smtp3.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F5B61A1B01 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 01:25:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Timea ([156.106.245.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp3.infomaniak.ch (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0R9Pbcm006885; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:25:37 +0100
Message-ID: <12630C9847474E678A99E51825C6C06D@Timea>
From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch>
To: "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com>, "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, <ianaplan@ietf.org>
References: <GLEAIDJPBJDOLEICCGMNGECODAAA.rhill@hill-a.ch> <54C7585B.50007@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:25:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/vyZD9vrP9LWBVwYi4NpJgh0sqY0>
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, 27 Jan 2015 09:25:45 -0000

>Hi Richard,

>On 1/26/15 8:26 PM, Richard Hill wrote:

>> My understanding is that the response is supposed to reflect the
>> consensus of the global multi-stakeholder community. So the IETF, as I
>> understand it, is supposed to consult and take into account the views
>> of that broad community.
>
>While I am tempted to rebut your statement, I think it would be bad form
>to do so until we have determined an answer to this question: can you
>explain how we are not re-litigating the RFP itself, the agreement on
>the charter, and the resulting work?  I ask because I don't see how
>discussing any of those three is going to result in any sort of decision
>making by this group.

Actually I agree with you, and I'm sure that you noticed that I did not 
initiate this thread and did not post to it until very recently, and then 
only on process issues.

>Eliot



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com>;
To: <rhill@hill-a.ch>;; "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>;; 
<ianaplan@ietf.org>;
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal 
development process


> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>