Re: [iri] 4395bis #57 (new): Add some language similar to RFC 3864, section 4.4

On 2/16/11 2:26 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 2011/2/16, iri issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>:
>> #57: Add some language similar to RFC 3864, section 4.4
>>
>>
>> Comment(by duerst@…):
>>
>>  Additional information from Graham Klyne:
>>
>>  I wouldn't necessarily hold up the text from RFC3864 as a shining example
>>  of what might be said, as on re-reading that the intent isn't crystal
>>  clear in light of subsequent discussions.  But I appreciate that you have
>>  picked up the notion in the spirit intended.
>>
>>  My further thoughts are:
>>
>>  1. that any text should be framed in terms of negotiation and consensus
>>  forming rather than objections to registration
>>
>>  2. that any text should emphasize that the majority of non-contentious
>>  registrations should incur very little administrative overhead on part of
>>  IANA or IESG
>>
>>  3. that the role of IESG as final arbiter is a role that should be invoked
>>  exceptionally rather than routinely.
>>
>>  Thus, maybe something like this:
>>  [[
>>  The registration procedure for URI schemes is intended to be very
>>  lightweight for non-contentious registrations.  For the most part, we
>>  expect the good sense of submitters and reviewers, guided by these
>>  procedures, to achieve an acceptable and useful consensus for the
>>  community.
>>
>>  In exceptional cases, where the negotiating parties cannot form a
>>  consensus, the final arbiter of any contested registration shall be the
>>  IESG.
>>
>>  If parties achieve consensus on a registration proposal that does not
>>  fully conform to the strict wording of this procedure, this should be
>>  drawn to the attention of a relevant member of the IESG.
> 
> Who is the *relevant* member of IESG?  And what is if it is a
> provisional regsitration
> in not-IETF RFC, eg Independent Submission?  Who will be the relevant
> IESG member then?

Given that the Applications Area typically handles issues related to
URIs and IRIs, I'd say the relevant members of the IESG would be the
Apps ADs. Contacting "the IESG" (or the IETF chair) is very likely to
result in a redirect to the Apps ADs anyway.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/