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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

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.

   Brian