Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

["Richard Hill" <rhill@xxxxxxxxx>]

I refer to the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Assembly and
Finalization Process, published at:

  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-final
ization-24dec14-en.pdf

I.1 states that ICG will review "Any process concerns that were highlighted
to the ICG by participants in the proposal development process".

Consequently, please review the following concerns that I am highlighting
regarding the IETF proposal development process for the protocol parameters
part of the IANA transition.

The IETF used its normal process to prepare its proposal. During the
process, some senior members of the IETF intervened in early stages of the
discussion. Thus, in my view, the process was not truly bottom-up: the
leadership influenced the outcome. See for example:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00656.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00113.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00115.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg00119.html

When it was clear that there was not full consensus, the co-chairs of the
IETF group that prepared the proposal declared that rough consensus had been
achieved.  However, the co-chairs did not provide a justification for their
decision, and this despite my request to that effect, see:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01492.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01415.html

In my view, as I tried to explain to the IETF working group[1], the IETF
proposal does not adequately address certain issues, in particular: (a)
replacing the existing IANA functions contract between NTIA and ICANN with
an equivalent legally binding contract for what concerns protocol parameters
(the current MoU between ICANN and IETF is probably not a legally binding
contract) (b) making provisions for future use of intellectual property (the
IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name) that are equivalent to their
current use, that is, use free of charge by whatever entity operates the
protocol paramenters part of the IANA function.

Thus, in my view, the outcome of the IETF working group fails to meet the
technical requirement of the work, because the "technical requirement"
included legal requirements that the group declined to discuss meaningfully,
see:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01347.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01285.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01267.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01207.html

Since the co-chairs did not provide a justification for their rough
consensus call (even though section 3 of RFC 7282 states that a valid
justification needs to be made), I could not formally challenge that call or
file an appeal.

Hence I am highlighting these concerns here.

Best,
Richard

[1] See for example:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01376.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01372.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01362.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01321.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01208.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01206.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01182.html

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01162.html