Hi Jari, if I may add a couple of points to your note, while waiting to hear from Milton :-), On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
Milton, others,
I wanted to get back to this topic since we did not have time to cover it on the call.
First, while I make some observations below, it is not so much about trying to suggest any changes to a particular assessment. From my perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?
Assuming this was addressed to all the ICG, and I do think it would be good to hear what everyone thinks; this was my understanding of the purpose of our assessments. The most basic tenets of the IANA transition were 1 - that the work was going to be done in the operating communities and, 2 - that there were existing (and fairly long-standing) processes in place which were known to and had been vetted by those communities allowing them to arrive at their proposals. I believe these two things are essential to the credibility of the overall transition; and certainly preferable to making up new processes, especially as we are talking about on-going operations.
On the call on Wednesday I emphasised that the community opinion needs to direct what we do rather than an individual (e.g., someone who sends ICG a comment) getting to decide.
But back to the IETF assessment. I don’t want to go into details; suffice it to say that each item highlighted in the assessment has been extensively discussed and weighed in the community, and an informed decision was made. And as noted, there will be further steps - I already promised to provide more useful information in one case, there might be some cases where alignment between different proposals leads to further work, and our legal counsel and other entities are working on contracts with the direction that the IETF community has given us.
Jari, Milton, if I might also add that it is the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) that has the responsibility to address/negotiate legal questions/contracts on behalf of the IETF, and not the IANAPLAN WG. The IAOC does this based on specific direction from the IETF community/WG's, etc. - all openly debated and communicated. While some of the meetings with legal counsel may not be public, quite a number of the legal implications are discussed in IETF WG's, etc. with legal counsel present.
But I do want to bring up one item - openness. To be clear, our process has been open for anyone, including for instance, allowing anyone joining all discussions without prior arrangement and being taken into account in forming the group opinion, having discussions on mailing lists that are open, having remote attendance options in our meetings, all discussions from meetings continuing on the list, and so on. Anybody can have a say, and not merely observe. Of course, coming to a consensus (even rough) in a large community requires broad agreement. That everyone is invited to participate does not mean that everyone is 100% satisfied with the outcome in all cases. And everyone gets to take part in the process based on their perspective and background. In a community- driven organisation, the leadership doesn't get to favour any particular perspective over others.
and to say it even more directly, the leadership does not hold any special position or sway over a consensus outcome. Inclusiveness means that anyone gets to take part in the process, no matter what values they hold or experience they have. Leadership doesn't state the parameters. In a community-driven process, it is those that participate that choose what value to place on contributions, and this is what drives consensus. Hope this helps. Milton, I know you understand alot of this, but I thought it might be helpful to those a bit less familiar with the IETF processes. Best, Lynn
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive processes here.
Cheers,
Jari
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg