[Internal-cg] Early draft for a charter

Daniel Karrenberg daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Tue Jul 15 16:45:05 UTC 2014

Let me contribute an essay:

When a person or group asks you to make a decision for them,
it is never wise to just do as they ask.

Sometimes it may be wise to help them see the question before them more

Often it is best just to look at them patiently until they make up their

One person who has taught me this by example was Jon Postel.


This says it all, so if pressed for time you can stop reading right here.


Application to the question being discussed:

If the names communities cannot come to consensus about the transition
of NTIA's role by themselves, then it would not be wise for the CG to
have any part in doing this for them, even if the names communities ask
for it.

The best the CG can do is to produce a unified proposal from the parts
that *do* have consensus in their respective communities and have those
communities come to consensus about that unified proposal.

It may be that the names communities do not realise what is at stake for
them and that it is in their interest to agree on *something* within a
reasonable time. If they cannot manage this by themselves then then the
CG cannot make this happen magically and should not try. Rather the CG
should make a proposal that leaves out the IANA functions concerning
names and disband.

If the names communities should find that they need help coming to
consensus it is up to them to find that help somewhere, possibly in
arbitration or some other process help. That is up to them. But if they
come to us we should say 'No'.

NB: This is not specific to "names". I just wrote it with reference to
this particular thread.

Summary: Daniel fully agrees with Alissa and substantially disagrees
with Milton.

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list