Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

>As I see it, either:
>
>a. this working group has to overtly address issues, and recruit
>experience, that are not normally within IETF WG purview, or,
>
>b. we need to have some OTHER, clearly defined, open, consensus process
>for addressing this set of issues; that includes strong representation
>from those with governance, regulatory, legal, and contractual matters
>in the Internet context (starting with the IAB, IAOC, IETF trust, and
>ISOC)
>
>
>Otherwise, IMHO, IETF is not carrying the water in responding to the
>RFP; and more substantively, risks undesirable outcomes in a post-NTIA
>world.

We were asked to reply to the ICG's questions as the IETF, not the
something-other-than-the-IETF. Many of us wear other hats or participate
in other bodies in the community. But the response that is going to come
out of the IETF has to derive from the IETF's processes. Changing what the
IETF is or how it works to reply to this questionnaire would totally
defeat the purpose - only in that case would we be failing to carry the
water, I thnk. The ICG is asking plenty of other bodies with different
mandates what other perspectives are, which includes the kind of expertise
you cite here.

So who gets to say what the IETF is? Because the IETF has no concept of
membership, anyone can join a list and advocate that "we" should do, or
"we" should be, this or that, even if they've never written an RFC, served
as a working group chair, or (apropos the topic today) registered a
protocol parameter. Even people who work primarily in bodies that directly
compete with us, like say the ITU-T, can walk in and opine on what "we"
should do here at the IETF. "Our" input comes from our partner
organizations, and from people completely out of left field, and even from
disgruntled former members of our leadership. And all of this input comes
from "us," as "we" are self-selecting.

I think the IETF likes it this way, because sometimes the best ideas come
from unexpected sources. But to Suzanne's point, consensus here is shaped
by our shared understanding of our processes and to some degree our
people. It is the consensus of this group that will, and should, represent
the IETF's response to this questionnaire. If you feel input to the ICG
should come from other sources or contributors who don't self-select as
IETFers, then that input isn't the IETF's input. It isn't "us."


Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.