Re: [Ianaplan] Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 08:03 -0400 Marc Blanchet
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think this one is too short. We shall support the whole
> initiative. This was also clear during the interim meeting.

Marc,

Let me play devil's advocate and take a position somewhat
stronger than Richard's in that role and context.

First, I do not understand the basis for "we shall support the
whole initiative", nor am I sure what it covers.    Almost
certainly "supporting the whole initiative" is not within scope
for the WG, even the interpretation suggested by Andrew (with
which I largely agree).  Even if it were within scope, I haven't
see a consensus call on this mailing list for "support the whole
initiative", nor do the minutes of the interim seen to reflect
such a decision that could then be confirmed on this list. 

Second, even as someone who would prefer to see the US
Government's role in IANA transitioned out of existence, but
continuing to speak as devil's advocate,  I believe that a
reasonable person could come away from the three (or four if one
counts CWG and CCWG separately as may be appropriate) reports,
the process that led to them, the selection of newly-created (or
proposed) bodies, and the likely apportionment of power among
them with the conclusion that, while a transition is
appropriate, a transition that leaves all of the decision
authority in assorted ICANN entities, subsidiaries, and
appointees is not.  

That could lead to supplementing Richard's proposed, probably
over-narrow, statement

> "Regarding the draft ICG proposal, the IETF raised two
transition 
> points that are mentioned in Paragraph 3062 of the proposal.
We would 
> ask that they be referenced in Part 0, Section V of the
proposal as 
> well."

with something that could say "The WG continues to believe that
a transition away from a US Government role in IANA management
and oversight is appropriate, but has not reviewed or reached a
consensus conclusion about the particulars of the ICG proposal
not covered in our earlier remarks or above".

That would be harder to spin as "we support the whole plan" or
"we oppose the whole plan" because it is quite clear that we are
not taking a position.  It could be made even stronger by
reference to charter or scope, etc., but it is not clear to me
(even as devil's advocate) that is necessary.

But, if your position, either as co-chair or as an individual in
a way that would prevent you, as co-chair, from fairly
considering other points of view, is that "we" necessarily
"shall support the whole initiative", then I think we have at
least a point on which people can reasonably disagree or a real
problem.

best,
    john