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

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Wed, 23 July 2014 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@istaff.org>
X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38CA91A0092 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 t8WtpE9H4Lbl for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E7831A0012 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-108-56-179-253.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([108.56.179.253] helo=[192.168.1.10]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jcurran@istaff.org>) id 1X9l73-000J8Z-0q; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:12:57 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Originating-IP: 108.56.179.253
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19WWcwDnoos61PG+LXtdVXr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140722143525.0c0363d8@elandnews.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:12:53 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3768DA89-A937-4A8A-8412-002C7C4374AA@istaff.org>
References: <A193D048-2B67-469A-93BA-C61BB362DA75@vigilsec.com> <53CD1E8A.1060804@acm.org> <CAD_dc6h_o9QNcj4O_6n78U1uDY_24OU1s5NRceUR_Dm97Q1ZdQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140721232728.0cc67788@resistor.net> <CAD_dc6geOVwGLvS79iX0+kZZxZzkT+PV4vYko=J80iQnRUJPmg@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140722143525.0c0363d8@elandnews.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/ZCnQ5_THTruAAHgzNWst5FgjpxY
Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Documents from the ICG Meeting Last Week are Available
X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <internetgovtech.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/>
List-Post: <mailto:internetgovtech@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:13:00 -0000

On Jul 22, 2014, at 7:58 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> According to a stewardship transition document there are 13 communities: ASO, ICC/BASIS, ISOC, NRO, IETF, IAB, SSAC, RSSAC, ALAC, GAC, GSNO, gTLD Registries and ccNSO.  The draft charter mentions that the Functions are divided into three main categories.  
...
> It looks like the theory of those who came up with the plan is that a person will be able to find a representative in one of those communities to represent his or her interests.

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.  

> The draft charter also mentions that there are relevant community processes and it says that the coordination group may refer input it receives to the relevant community discussion.

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.

> Let's assume that you belong to the numbers community and you have an interest in names.  I guess that you could contact a representative from https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en for advice.

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.

> One definition of conflict of interest is "when a person has separate duties to act in the best interest of two or more clients in relation to the same or related matter, and those duties conflict, or there is a significant risk that those duties may conflict".  I would be increasing the risk by getting involved in a discussion about the numbers process.

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 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)

/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.