This is the same as my last message, but I changed the header (which I should have done last time). If you want to respond to me, please respond to this message not the other one.
-----Original Message----- Since then we've brought the draft RFP into our community, and the community is now busy working on an actual proposal. The first draft of that proposal is out. I think the IETF's questions about this topic are more in the proposal itself, and something we can work on ourselves, and at
I have a bit of a problem with this, sorry to say. While I think it's fine that people in IETF are developing ideas for proposals, the RFP makes it clear that the process in each operational community is supposed to be open and transparent, and include other interested and affected parties. I think it would be a travesty if we release the RFP and the IETF announces 5 days later that they are finished. Even if this is presented as a "Draft," any different ideas coming from the outside would be dealing with what is in effect a sealed process, in which changes would not be welcome or even seriously considered. The IETF needs to convene a publicly announced, open process based on the RFP that we are developing. --MM _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Repeating my answer:
I have a bit of a problem with this, sorry to say. While I think it's fine that people in IETF are developing ideas for proposals, the RFP makes it clear that the process in each operational community is supposed to be open and transparent, and include other interested and affected parties. I think it would be a travesty if we release the RFP and the IETF announces 5 days later that they are finished.
Even if this is presented as a "Draft," any different ideas coming from the outside would be dealing with what is in effect a sealed process, in which changes would not be welcome or even seriously considered. The IETF needs to convene a publicly announced, open process based on the RFP that we are developing.
Which is what we are doing. Or are in the first stages of doing this. We’ve had meetings, a proposal for a forum (WG) to develop a proposal in an open manner, and the WG will soon be formally created. We have done some outreach, but are planning to do even more. Indeed, most of the effort is not in writing a draft initial proposal (what we have now), but building the broad consensus that we have the right stuff - that road is still ahead of us, and will take months. Not to take anything away from having started early and already having some pieces and discussion places, that is clearly useful. But we are committed to running an open and broadly inclusive process. (And that includes reaching out to people in governments, civil society, etc - participating though as individual, as we all do in any IETF process.) Jari
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2014 7:03 PM
[Narelle Clark]
-----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2014 7:00 PM
-----Original Message----- Since then we've brought the draft RFP into our community, and the community is now busy working on an actual proposal. The first draft of that proposal is out. I think the IETF's questions about this topic are more in the proposal itself, and something we can work on ourselves, and at
I have a bit of a problem with this, sorry to say. While I think it's fine that people in IETF are developing ideas for proposals, the RFP makes it clear that the process in each operational community is supposed to be open and transparent, and include other interested and affected parties. I think it would be a travesty if we release the RFP and the IETF announces 5 days later that they are finished.
[Narelle Clark] Then let us urge the IETF to ensure their processes include the **capacity for** future alignment/realignment with the views and outputs of other communities.
Even if this is presented as a "Draft," any different ideas coming from the outside would be dealing with what is in effect a sealed process, in which changes would not be welcome or even seriously considered. The IETF needs to convene a publicly announced, open process based on the RFP that we are developing.
[Narelle Clark] There is also the perspective that should the IETF produce a substantial document that deals with all the substantive issues and represents a practical, helpful view of the future, then other communities may have an extremely useful basis from which to work. If the IETF can produce what is effectively a comprehensive template then I suspect the other communities will be overjoyed. Best regards Narelle
participants (3)
-
Jari Arkko -
Milton L Mueller -
Narelle Clark