Re: [Ianaplan] One more attempt at text (Re: Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review)

Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com> Tue, 25 August 2015 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD66F1A1A28 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fSizS6-l3yH3 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12F381A0385 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgeh99 with SMTP id h99so50200527qge.0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1WNjE1Tj9LxY0ttIG8azwyIz3u/VQ9I6bYCNFNiicD4=; b=BmT2bfmFdc3Yyi9T4NgFZe1cK/mpKL8tzDfFHbkNt8My2DT66vLmZLG9mZ+VPe8v4Y 06y43eOfzOkK0zJcAyaidaEolxjS1U2pc9NIEtgUvadvXh/qLtOmcoIanvOE1nTMjsrL r4H2HyvHThxZ6uAEK9T/MrJKOwnP+KWrRNxMrT26kZ66Y6lORNzsF1qiK/915dQje+rU dCzYps2nW0e05ioQ2U3g2i9Pvjc/M34lWbsKQN6pu9pJsJ1OiU+a9gzhL3aenctTzJ2W 2oSQqhk3hHWPAOgUdKMvPIx6IVYKA5nMy2FJ7GbezIuD6RJh4YEDSTRSKYjswc/yHHHH Dh0A==
X-Received: by 10.140.195.148 with SMTP id q142mr68952332qha.92.1440520320225; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.45.197 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5330B563-BA17-4574-AB6C-226FEC40F2F1@frobbit.se>
References: <A619F46842E0B3A5C0C9A9D4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5330B563-BA17-4574-AB6C-226FEC40F2F1@frobbit.se>
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:31:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBzcr5Ac5yXYr5RAeSk6bcsOnrF13Y3DTL6oKz13iT6eWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?UGF0cmlrIEbDpGx0c3Ryw7Zt?= <paf@frobbit.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/cCdJY168tFoQYze0PsB_SFUQYmM>
Cc: Org <ianaplan@ietf.org>, "Leslie Daigle \(ThinkingCat\)" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch>, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] One more attempt at text (Re: Updated text Re: Please keep context in mind Re: Consensus call -- text reply for ICG proposal review)
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:32:05 -0000

It would seem to me that the "rigorous" and/or "ethical" stance toward
the process would be more of the character of those groups that
produced parts generally holding off on issuing conclusive statements
on the whole until after the comment period, thereby themselves
benefitting from the comments; and during the period thinking more in
line of considering whether comments from the group are warranted
regarding how the thing hangs together.  Indeed, a push for
subcommunity endorsement of the whole might well appear to be designed
to minimize the pertinence of internal concerns that could be
introduced by the present public comment period.


Seth


On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
> All,
>
> On top of what has been said let me urge the IETF to think carefully about the situation.
>
> It is correct that the open consultation is something ICG has requested, the consultation include a number of specific questions, which all are related to the principles NTIA has put on the transition. Principles that are I think well founded in the multistakeholder environment we all live in. See paper from ISOC on the matter <http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/perspectives-iana-stewardship-transition-principles>. People can of course also in general make general comments on the proposal.
>
> The proposal itself is built upon responses to an RFP that ICG did send to the three operational communities and each one have used whatever process they used to come up with the proposal. They have reached consensus and have submitted their portion of the combined proposal that now ICG have on the table.
>
> Various pieces of the proposal of course matter to various degrees to the various operational communities and of course it is interesting to know, if it is possible to get, the view of the communities if the ICG compilation of the proposals are correct.
>
> But there is a slippery slope here which I think make the situation difficult, which is where maybe this discussion is. It includes everything from difficulties from separating feedback and thoughts on each one of the OC's portion of the combined proposal to the actual combination action that ICG did. From whether the consensus reached in each one of the groups do or not impact the OC that comments to the question on whether the different view brought up was in the rough side of consensus of some other OC.
>
> You can, as mr Hill notes, see his objections to the CWG proposal and the process that lead to it. You can also see the response from the chairs of the CWG. I am not to interpret what has been written by mr Hill and the chairs.
>
> The response from the CWG chairs can be found here:
>
> <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-August/001334.html>
>
> What I can say is that I urge people to be careful in this, as in all similar situations, where there might be a question whether one consensus process is investigating consensus in another consensus process. There is a difference between individuals/organisations having a view and consensus processes having a view. Should IETF have a view on the CWG process itself?
>
> And as I think more than one person have written, regardless what is said by the IANAPLAN Operational Community (from ICG perspective), or IETF or...it is important to be careful with wording so that the processes still are as independent from each other as they are intended to be.
>
>    Patrik Fältström
>    Speaking personally
>    But for disclosure: co-chair of ICG
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>