[Internal-cg] IETF assessment

Jari Arkko jari.arkko at piuha.net
Tue Jan 27 00:55:36 UTC 2015


I have been responding today on the list, and from my perspective the case is closed, and I have suggested next steps (*). Not sure they affect the assessment.

Do you have an early version of your assessment in the Dropbox or otherwise available?


(*) The list archive is here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/maillist.html

and my e-mail is below:

> I’d like to suggest a constructive way forward.
> First, I think we should observe that the ICG process put the planning and proposal efforts on purpose into the community processes. Those are the processes that we run. They are probably not perfect, they are certainly not the only possible ones, but they are processes that have existed and evolved for decades. The IANA transition is not an opportunity to redefine these processes.
> Second, the community has had a very clear opinion about matters, and re-opening discussions is not good practice. As usual, there are some issue where agreement was not universal. Disagreement with otherwise broad consensus is not grounds for re-opening a discussion.
> Third, I want everyone to focus on the concept that we’ve completed a step but that is not the last one. Among other things, the transition might involve some contract-termination/negotiation/renegotiation. And even if it would be very convenient, even IETF consensus doesn’t allow us to sign stuff in the name of other organisations :-) Or resolve conflicts between the three community proposals. So I would suggest that we stick to our clear direction from the WG, sit back, and see what these additional steps will bring. We will see updates as ICG, IAOC, and others have something to say, and any changes of direction will obviously need community feedback.
> Fourth, I wanted to go a bit back to the original e-mail that started this thread (finally!). As noted above, I think it would be inappropriate to start redefining the IETF process, and I think we’ve provided far more explanation about where we are and why than we’ve done in the approval process of most other IETF documents. One of the features of the IETF process is the expectation that most participants usually track the development of the community opinion, and conclusions are usually understood even before they are formally made. And when those conclusions get made, they can be brief, as the full discussion is visible on the mailing list archive.
> Yet, I have been talking to Milton and he has a point about communities understanding their own process well, but it being more difficult for newcomers, and in particular, complete outsiders that view the events later. I’d like to suggest that we produce an informal explanation of the process that helps provide visibility to people at large about what happened in the development of the IETF proposal from IANAPLAN WG. This is not a rerun of the process, an official document, or an opportunity to re-open discussions, but I think it would help us in the coming months as more people will be asking about our proposals. I’ll work with the chairs to produce that.
> Jari
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150127/03b38b5e/signature.asc>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list