[Internal-cg] IETF assessment

[Jari Arkko]

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?

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.

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.
 
Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive
processes here.

Cheers,

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/20150130/29437fe7/signature-0001.asc>