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

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 26 January 2015 04:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071161A1BC9 for <>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:38:00 -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 ViUtLYeXo0Jr for <>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:37:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 443FD1A1B85 for <>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:37:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y10so9799395pdj.7 for <>; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:37:57 -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=WHrQkhwb47aNQEUp6c+dv4rAP1OBHJgaVA+18K54Cpw=; b=XQyV/PXk6a4VJzDF0hn6JT+pMM8deal62C+cl5gYih/J/vygoSnbmtXwPNTLwCQOmt jp+qRpTrtqx/MOFa1KipSiE3jPN4i4g7FbWJiF/nbJRaRqoVaHkvfzNbPWMg2WgmmZ1h USwDMD73Qt6C4nyqFllHxGYXt8EK3CxUEmT1xyamoPf/fbeC9S6RgrNKoOmqTsqFNuV6 ytIYck33GSlpu798j4zx7hMD6KrsA41JliSUJFHGvgd98K8LfbM2H/pgMk88tiFnl3o2 0NXaFuZIu37Y2nkvwcfVBJkjRvMvIQ/COAFzelHic0zmS2x0iWgfi4jk/IPsk+eaZUDv iPdw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e6mr31961960pat.6.1422247077523; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:5f94:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:5f94:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id uf3sm8592087pbc.25.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:37:53 +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: Miles Fidelman <>,
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: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 04:38:00 -0000

On 26/01/2015 16:28, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 09:51:55PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> No... that's not crystal clear.  What's crystal clear is that the WG
>>> leadership, and a majority of participants, felt that it was beyond its
>>> charter to comment on legal and contractual issues, and didn't want to get
>>> into them.
>> I guess we disagree about this.  I will say, however, that the idea
>> that a WG could negotiate a contract seems to me a little optimistic.
>> As I understand it, that very difficulty is the reason the IETF came
>> up with the IAOC in the first place.
> Well, on that later note, all I can say is that every time I get involved in a proposal effort, lots of people review the terms
> and conditions section, and provide input to council - we don't treat it as out-of-scope.

What Andrew said. Also, when the original IETF/ICANN MoU was negotiated, the
first draft (which said what *we* wanted) was developed mainly as an IAB effort
with IESG involvement, and debated in the POISSON WG (the venue for IETF
process discussions at that time). But the legal details were negotiated
between the IAB & IETF Chairs (me and Fred Baker) with advice from our counsel
and the ICANN President with advice from his counsel. Today, we have the
IAOC and its counsel for our side of that negotiation. Otherwise, there's
really no difference; the IAOC is answerable to the IETF, just as the
IAB & IETF Chairs were 15 years ago. We trust them to come back to the
community if points of principle arise, but not for tweaks to legal language.