Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 23 July 2014 08:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F611A0266 for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D8XywMwg7zt9 for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26781A0198 for <>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6N8a5xN019281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1406104579; x=1406190979; bh=UcOzkOXgeO6CM78N0yZIkIRZHvUTZgXCGbSqjfljQGY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=f+3aVD2ESil3zYuton4k9s4gWpif2ERy4gXHR6fNQwuqvpnB7xVl/VTTF2ma3KFHl AR/5xYU9Ry5Gf5MOrfnpmM/KC33k6XXLrQOZL5naMlssSP46qA27OzM4pABeu86aV6 why3CbPj+uXsO9j/47USH90IIuPchcgUzCXnllqY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1406104579; x=1406190979;; bh=UcOzkOXgeO6CM78N0yZIkIRZHvUTZgXCGbSqjfljQGY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ayMd6RZTjvG/LHIjxD5isntP5/w1XlwpYTkaiqeZb3pyYzOnlo5r2DSTCBZLKh1Oa KitS5/UtwBaSXaxULg3WxBMarXQwUQH2QxZrcx7jDM35zLPoutk3r6iBT7siQ1BJS7 BB0YvMKUnH1pxPmAGETq1CnW18BtervV+SfLbEko=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:19:55 -0700
To: John Curran <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc:, Seun Ojedeji <>
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:36:27 -0000

Hi John,
At 18:12 22-07-2014, John Curran wrote:
>I don't see anything to support that theory in any of the materials;
>as I understand it, the coordinating group acts as liaisons for the
>solicitation of proposals, assembly of a complete proposal, and the
>related communications.


>Relevant community processes are mentioned in the materials, so I
>imagine that will mean processes in each of the communities to come
>up with various proposals.  Contacting a representative makes sense,
>but not to carry your views as much as find our the process in that
>community for participating and sharing your views therein.


>That's probably a fine starting point, but it would be even better if
>there were processes for each of the various communities to work on
>proposals.  You could then get involved in each of the communities that
>you felt you had interest in.


I prefer not to be involved in discussions about the transition in 
the other communities as the issues are too controversial.

>Strange; many folks that I know are involved in multiple communities,
>and I'd expect to see them involved in each of the processes to the
>extent that they are interested in such...  This is no different than
>regular participants in IETF working groups; they participate as
>individuals (not representatives of any particular community) and
>their ideas are evaluated on merit rather than origin or imprimatur.

I'll comment about the second sentence (above).  I have participated 
in several IETF working groups in several Areas; I am the only person 
from my region who used to send Last Call comments to  My personal experience has been that I was held to a 
higher standard compared to other regular participants.  I don't wish 
that newcomers, irrespective of origin, go through the same 
experience as I did.

>I can understand a concern in clarity of participation by those on
>the ITG, but I do not know why it would be an issue for anyone else,
>(unless they somehow have been given a duty to formally represent
>one of these communities)

It is a personal decision.  I'll cite some words from the Supreme 
Court of Texas:

   "The needs of the many outweigh ...
    the needs of the few"

I don't know the right answer for the above.  I do know that there 
are three words missing in the above [1][2].

S. Moonesamy