jjs at dyalog.net
Fri Jun 26 11:35:15 UTC 2015
yesterday, just as our ICG meeting ended, Martin drew my attention to the fact that I, and at least one other colleague, had invoked the ICG Charter to oppose a new task, which would be to describe and comment "alternatives". During our meeting, the discussion was about whether recent remarks by the US Assistant Secretary for Commerce required additional action by the ICG. Daniel, Kavouss and I (and some other colleagues less directly) were of the opinion that it would not be appropriate for the ICG to express an opinion about "alternatives", and that we should limit ourselves to ensuring that the public record does document the process and choice of the operational communities.
I am grateful to Martin for drawing my attention to the fact that our Charter does not explicitly rule out further, additional tasks to be performed by the ICG, at the behest of NTIA or any other public authority. I am glad to recognize his point. However, I must point out that our Charter does not provide for any revision or modification of our role.
As in many areas of public policy, a charter must be viewed in its entirety. The "transition plan" we are expected to assemble is based on 4 criteria. There is no suggestion that, at a later stage, the ICG might receive further or additional instructions. Whereas the agreed process calls for us to "solicit proposals" (i/a), to "solicit broader input" (i/b) including public comment (even though the term "public comment" is not used), it does not provide for afterthoughts by the instructing authority. Further, under "Assembling and submitting a complete proposal" (iii), our task is described as "taking the proposals for the different components and verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope, meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and that the whole fits together".
I am satisfied with the decision we reached yesterday morning, which is to provide all necessary links to the process by which the operational communities made their choice. This will be our contribution to ensuring that the public record, which is understandably a requirement in public administration, is complete. If the idea of the ICG commenting on "alternatives" were to placed on our table once again, I would formally request a new set of written instructions from the public authority currently in charge of overseeing the IANA functions.
----- Mail original -----
De: "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>
Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <Internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Vendredi 26 Juin 2015 07:37:11
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives"
Since Larry Strickling was relatively general in asking for explanations re potential alternatives to the proposal clarification might be of advantage whether his concerns are more related to the CCWG proposal and its development.
For the explanation of the ICG proposal I basically agree with James.
Sent from my personal phone
> Am 26.06.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> After more reflection I still do not support this.
> I understand the motivation of NTIA and the arguments in favour. They
> do not convince me that we should do extra work or add extra words:
> I remain convinced that all we need is a description of transition and
> the post-transition state plus a description of the process to develop
> this description. We should describe our own process and provide
> pointers to the public record of how the customer communities
> developed their responses to us. Their record already includes the
> principles they developed and discussions about alternatives. We can
> ask for *specific* clarification by the communities if we feel
> something is missing from their response to us or from the existing
> public record.
> Of course we should add our evaluation whether the process and the
> result meet the criteria set out at the beginning.
> There is no need for us to re-tell the story of how the proposals were
> developed. Re-telling the story is unnecessary work which also has a
> great risk of changing the story, even unintentionally. We should not
> expose ourselves to the risk of causing confusion or maybe even
> failure by re-interpreting the public record of the communities.
> Re-telling also creates more words. As you know I advocate the minimum
> number of words possible.
> We should not invent new requirements or criteria on the fly unless we
> have very strong consensus in the ICG that they are absolutely
> necessary for our deliverable and they were not foreseeable at the
> outset. Asking the communities at this point for the a description of
> the alternatives they considered is such a new requirement and I do
> not consider it necessary.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
More information about the Internal-cg