<div dir="ltr"><div>Jari,</div><div>What do you mean by Quote</div><div><font color="#500050"><em>" Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive<br>> processes here." </em></font></div><div><font color="#500050">Unquote</font></div><div><font color="#500050">Who sets the bar?</font></div><div><font color="#500050">What bar? </font></div><div><font color="#500050">What is the issue? </font></div><div><font color="#500050">We should CAREFUL of what?</font></div><div><font color="#500050">tj hanks</font></div><div><font color="#500050">Kavouss </font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-01-30 19:54 GMT+01:00 Lynn St.Amour <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Lynn@lstamour.org" target="_blank">Lynn@lstamour.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Jari,<br>
<br>
if I may add a couple of points to your note, while waiting to hear from Milton :-),<br>
<span><br>
On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:09 AM, Jari Arkko <<a href="mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net">jari.arkko@piuha.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Milton, others,<br>
><br>
> I wanted to get back to this topic since we did not have time to cover<br>
> it on the call.<br>
><br>
> First, while I make some observations below, it is not so much about<br>
> trying to suggest any changes to a particular assessment. From my<br>
> perspective the assessments are primarily an internal tool for the ICG<br>
> and may come from multiple people. There is an official result that the<br>
> ICG needs to agree on, but it is the separate conclusion on whether<br>
> we need to ask something from that community or not. Does this<br>
> view of the process make sense, or do you want to do something else?<br>
<br>
</span>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.<br>
<span><br>
> On the call on Wednesday I emphasised that the community opinion<br>
> needs to direct what we do rather than an individual (e.g., someone<br>
> who sends ICG a comment) getting to decide.<br>
><br>
> But back to the IETF assessment. I don’t want to go into details; suffice<br>
> it to say that each item highlighted in the assessment has been extensively<br>
> discussed and weighed in the community, and an informed decision was<br>
> made. And as noted, there will be further steps - I already promised to<br>
> provide more useful information in one case, there might be some<br>
> cases where alignment between different proposals leads to further work,<br>
> and our legal counsel and other entities are working on contracts with<br>
> the direction that the IETF community has given us.<br>
<br>
</span>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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<span><br>
> But I do want to bring up one item - openness. To be clear, our process<br>
> has been open for anyone, including for instance, allowing anyone joining<br>
> all discussions without prior arrangement and being taken into account in<br>
> forming the group opinion, having discussions on mailing lists that<br>
> are open, having remote attendance options in our meetings, all<br>
> discussions from meetings continuing on the list, and so on. Anybody can<br>
> have a say, and not merely observe. Of course, coming to a consensus<br>
> (even rough) in a large community requires broad agreement. That<br>
> everyone is invited to participate does not mean that everyone is 100%<br>
> satisfied with the outcome in all cases. And everyone gets to take part in<br>
> the process based on their perspective and background. In a community-<br>
> driven organisation, the leadership doesn't get to favour any particular<br>
> perspective over others.<br>
<br>
</span>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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Lynn<br>
<span><br>
<br>
> Please be very careful in setting the bar for open and inclusive<br>
> processes here.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Jari<br>
><br>
</span>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Internal-cg mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Internal-cg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org">Internal-cg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>