Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Draft submission interlude

From: "Leslie Daigle (TCE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:20:07 -0500

As Marc has noted, the coincidence in dates was just that -- a coincidence.

I will observe that the point of the Internet-Draft cutoff before an
IETF meeting is to allow participants time to read relevant material and
engage in discussion before and at the IETF meeting.  The same can be
said for a last call:  if you have a different proposal, it should have 
been surfaced sufficiently in advance of the end of the last call to 
allow WG participants to read it and engage in thoughtful discussion. 
It's not the pre-meeting I-D blackout that is a problem here; any 
alternative proposals are late at this point.

Certainly, the fact that we were on this timeline and that the existing 
draft was to be considered this group's key work item is not a surprise 
-- my note to the WG on October 3 (quoted below, for convenience [1]) 
made that quite clear.

As Andrew has suggested, engaging in discussion here to determine 
support for whatever proposals you have is the important step, as it 
goes to the question of establishing working group consensus.  That 
consensus is what matters, not the document you could publish in the 39 
hours between the end of the I-D publication moratorium and the end of 
the WGLC.

Leslie.

[1]
[I wrote to the IANAPLAN WG, on October 3, 2014:]
> In order to respect the timeline of the Working Group and deliver an
> IETF response by the January 15, 2015 deadline, it is our expectation
> the group will choose to adopt draft-lear-iana-icg-response as a
> working group document, next week.  Discussion during the virtual
> interim meeting will focus on reviewing that document, discussing
> issues raised to date, and using the high bandwidth opportunity to
> propose resolutions to them.
>
> As always, any proposed decisions made during the meeting will be
> reconfirmed on the mailing list.
>
> Nonetheless, with a view to the timeline, we recognize that we need
> to get the working group document pretty much in shape and taken care
> of _before_ the Honolulu meeting, so that remaining issues can be
> worked on at IETF 91 and finalized shortly thereafter.

On 11/4/14 10:31 AM, Jefsey wrote:
> Dear Chairs, I just discovered a cute IETF trick. One cannot submit
> drafts during the last-call period if adequately chosen :-)
>
> IETF:
>> The cut-off time for the I-D submission was 00h UTC, 2014-10-28.
>> The I-D submission tool will be reopened at 00h local time at the
>> IETF meeting location, 2014-11-10.
>
> Chair:
>> given the proposed timeline agreed during our last interim meeting
>> and based on that the outstanding issues should have been addressed
>> in the -02 version, this message starts a working group last call
>> on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02.  This working group last
>> call will end november 11, 23h59 UTC. Given that our meeting is
>> scheduled on november 10th, it would be useful if people send their
>> comments prior to the meeting so they can be addressed or discussed
>> before or during the meeting.
>
> Should I add the draft to my appeal ? What is the most constructive
> solution that will not irritate my co-writers?
>
> jfc _______________________________________________ Ianaplan mailing
> list [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:56:43 +0100

At 19:20 04/11/2014, Leslie Daigle (TCE) wrote:
>said for a last call:  if you have a different proposal, it should 
>have been surfaced sufficiently in advance of the end of the last 
>call to allow WG participants to read it and engage in thoughtful 
>discussion. It's not the pre-meeting I-D blackout that is a problem 
>here; any alternative proposals are late at this point.

Leslie,
I commented to Andrew.

Let say this is an unfortunate misunderstanding about IETF 
proceedings and petty constraints we did not think of and were not 
reminded. It only underlines that the present ICANN/IETF/ISOC 
technical governance system in addition to our Libre organizations 
governance, in addition to the ITU organization, in addition to the 
national/european and civil society  governance, in addition to the 
defense of our users interests, is inadequate to address multilateral 
issues in a proper manner. Too many things/changes/positions in too 
short a time.

This experience only confirms most of my friends' position that what 
counts is not anyone position, any group consensus, but working and 
accepted code. I tried to show them that participating to a common 
preparation effort could also politically help. Turns out I have failed ....

>Certainly, the fact that we were on this timeline and that the 
>existing draft was to be considered this group's key work item is 
>not a surprise -- my note to the WG on October 3 (quoted below, for 
>convenience [1]) made that quite clear.

Sure. Considering this draft as this group's key work is a main point 
in my appeal.
However, appealing is just to obtain the IESG to tell you to consider 
otherwise as you smartly accepted to consider it.
I fully understand that a "fait accompli" strategy is a good way to oppose us.

It only results in several races against the clock. A two weeks 
unexpected delay is a surprise for us, that many others had taken 
into consideration.
Thats all.
Best
jfc

>consensus is what matters, not the document you could publish in the 
>39 hours between the end of the I-D publication moratorium and the 
>end of the WGLC.
>
>Leslie.
>
>
>[1]