[Internal-cg] IETF assessment

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Fri Jan 30 19:30:44 UTC 2015

What do you mean by Quote

*" Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive>
processes here." *
Who sets the bar?
What bar?
What is the issue?
We should CAREFUL of what?
tj hanks

2015-01-30 19:54 GMT+01:00 Lynn St.Amour <Lynn at lstamour.org>:

> Hi Jari,
> if I may add a couple of points to your note, while waiting to hear from
> Milton :-),
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
> > 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?
> Assuming this was addressed to all the ICG, and I do think it would be
> good to hear what everyone thinks; this was my understanding of the purpose
> of our assessments.  The most basic tenets of the IANA transition were 1 -
> that the work was going to be done in the operating communities and, 2 -
> that there were existing (and fairly long-standing) processes in place
> which were known to and had been vetted by those communities allowing them
> to arrive at their proposals.  I believe these two things are essential to
> the credibility of the overall transition; and certainly preferable to
> making up new processes, especially as we are talking about on-going
> operations.
> > 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.
> Jari, Milton, if I might also add that it is the IETF Administrative
> Oversight Committee (IAOC) that has the responsibility to address/negotiate
> legal questions/contracts on behalf of the IETF, and not the IANAPLAN WG.
> The IAOC does this based on specific direction from the IETF
> community/WG's, etc. - all openly debated and communicated.   While some of
> the meetings with legal counsel may not be public, quite a number of the
> legal implications are discussed in IETF WG's, etc. with legal counsel
> present.
> > 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.
> and to say it even more directly, the leadership does not hold any special
> position or sway over a consensus outcome.  Inclusiveness means that anyone
> gets to take part in the process, no matter what values they hold or
> experience they have.  Leadership doesn't state the parameters.  In a
> community-driven process, it is those that participate that choose what
> value to place on contributions, and this is what drives consensus.
> Hope this helps.  Milton, I know you understand alot of this, but I
> thought it might be helpful to those a bit less familiar with the IETF
> processes.
> Best,
> Lynn
> > Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive
> > processes here.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jari
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150130/47ce8363/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list