[Internal-cg] Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, 6-7 February 2015

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Here are my comments on the draft minutes:


-----

DAY 1

5.

"The ICG members expressed strong concerns about the jurisdictional 
issue of IETF MoU in relation to the interdependency between the 
operational communities. The ICG decided to further articulate any 
question to the operational community on the internal-cg mailing list 
and to discuss this topic further for the second day meeting."


I do not recall that all ICG members expressed concerns and I also do 
not recall these as particular concerns, rather as questions. My 
recollection supports a wording like:

"Some ICG members raised questions about the jurisdiction governing 
agreements in the IETF proposal. The ICG decided ....."

----

6.

"Wilson stated that the numbers proposal essentially reflects the 
consensus among the RIRs."

I recollect Paul describing it in more detail which I consider relevant 
to minute. My recollection would support a wording like:

"Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP 
team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in 
all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from these 
discussions in an open and transparent process."

...

"Discussions among the ICG members clarified that the RIRs will not 
redesign the policy making process related to numbers but only to change 
the oversight process."

could be further clarified like this:

"Discussions among the ICG members clarified that the RIRs do not 
propose to change the way global Internet number policies are made. The 
RIR response is limited to the implementation of these policies."

----

DAY2

5.

"Karrenberg spoke to the reasoning behind the second approach as he 
stated the possibility of the ICG receiving an influx of comments after 
the submission of the names proposal, and having a set procedure dealing 
with comments received on the icg-forum may negatively impact ICG’s 
process.  He stated that the comments can be dealt with within ICG’s 
current process."

what I intended to say is better represented by this language:

"Karrenberg spoke to the reasoning behind the second approach. He said 
he was concerned about the reduced flexibility for the ICG and the high 
potential for abuse that any fixed procedure caused. He suggested that 
ICG use its existing process to deal with comments by taking note of all 
comments and deciding to ask specific questions to the communities based 
on comments we agree to be relevant while the operational communities 
remained free to act on any and all comments on their own initiative. He 
also noted that the procedure as written delegated inappropriate 
judgement calls to the secretariat."