Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm)

Andrew Sullivan <> Mon, 13 August 2012 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3033F21F86A4 for <>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.84
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id odfGmOhLrb21 for <>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC01521F869E for <>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 998938A031 for <>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:58:46 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:58:49 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Subject: Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm)
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:58:49 -0000

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:49:35PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one.  We
> should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities
> that include the IETF

Why is it useful?  

As far as I know, this is the very first time we have had a problem
shaped exactly like this.  There have been other issues with different
sets of parties on other multilateral activities, but they appear to
have demanded a different kind of response, since that's what they
got.  It seems to me that we could better spend our energies working
on standards (using our actual standards development model rather than
the abstract approximation in the affirmation!) than in working up
rules to govern a circumstance that, we should all hope, will not
arise again in our lifetimes.  Not every single bit of human
interaction requires a process rule.  Some things just require
judgement, and I encourage "the leadership" -- people we put (via the
nomcom) into the position to exercise such judgement -- to do so.


PS: I have on purpose not commented about the proposed statement,
because the request was for strong objections, and I have none.

Andrew Sullivan