On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 08:56:56PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > However, there is a broader issue that I think we should all be > keeping in mind, especially when things like ongoing discussion > about the proposals associated with ETSI and ITU-T or a question > asked at the plenary should remind us. The IETF didn't invent > packet switching or even TCP/IP. Even if "we" had, we produce > voluntary standards, standards whose adoption depends on > perceptions of their technical quality and of the openness, > balance, and fairness of the processes that produce them and not > because the IETF has any claim to ownership of any particular > set of standards and protocols that anyone else is required to > take seriously. "We" also don't get to determine what gets > layered on top of our core protocols: Not only does > "permissionless innovation" (a song many of us have sung for > years) not mean "don't need permission of anyone other than the > IETF", but, had consultation with the IETF been a requirement > before its early development, we might not have the web, at > least a web running as part of the Internet. Indeed. And the main problem with Barry's I-D is that it feels like an understated change to IANA registries. At best it confuses how those IANA registries that don't require Protocol Action would work. At worst it's a power grab. The given justification (something to do with consistency) is utterly underwhelming. Any change of this magnitude should require stronger justification. Anyways, the idea that registration requests by individuals should be ascribed to the IETF seems _really_ wrong -- a complete misunderstanding of the IANA. That or I completely misunderstood the I-D. If the latter, please clue me in. > [...]. So, if a process change > proposal, especially one that appears to give the IESG more > power and authority, shows up after an IESG internal discussion, > it is important to be extra-sure that the community consensus is > clear if the IESG later adopts it. [...] > [...]. That goes beyond specific types of proposals: for > example, maybe we need to think about recall procedures less in > terms of "do we trust the IESG and IAB" and "maybe any problems > can wait for the next NomCom" but in terms of it being obvious > that we have clear and workable models by which the community > can insure fairness and protect itself against cabals within the > leadership and other abuses. > > Again, those things (and probably others we might benefit from > having clearer rules and procedures about) are not because we > don't trust our leadership, but that, especially in troubled > times, the appearance of a fair and open process with good > safeguards against abuse or dominance by particular people in > the leadership, or particular companies or clusters of > interests, may be as or more important that our internal > confidence that such things are not occurring. Trust, but not really. Nico --
