[Internal-cg] IETF assessment

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Sat Jan 31 17:12:12 UTC 2015

Lynn, Jari, all other colleagues:

I was in a series of f2f meetings all day Thursday and Friday and am only now catching up with the email. I will respond to Jari and Lynn either later today (Saturday) or early tomorrow (Sunday). 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 1:55 PM
> To: Jari Arkko; Internal-cg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] IETF assessment
> 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

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list