[Internal-cg] Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting, 6-7 February 2015
daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Sat Mar 7 10:25:07 UTC 2015
Personally I consider it appropriate to minute what Paul said about the
numbers proposal process in more detail than the current draft. In
particular the reference to "consensus among the RIRs" is too narrow
because in fact the process produced "consensus of the five regional
communities" which is wider than just the RIR organisations and that is
essential. Hence I proposed text which according to my recollection and
the materials Paul presented is definitely not "putting words into
Paul's mouth" as Milton suggests. So I do not agree with the current
draft in this regard and propose to use the language I proposed.
On 28.02.15 15:46 , Jennifer Chung wrote:
> Hi All,
> Attached is version 3 of the ICG F2F meeting #4 Day 1 minutes (Feb 6).
> There has been no further change to version 2 of the Day 2 minutes (Feb 7).
> The minutes are available on the Dropbox links below:
> I have reflected Milton's edits with tracked changes to Daniel's edits.
> Please let me know if there are any additional edits needed/if I may accept
> the changes as such.
> Best Regards,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:29 PM
> To: Daniel Karrenberg; Jennifer Chung; 'ICG'
> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the Fourth ICG Face-to-Face Meeting,
> 6-7 February 2015
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I do not recall that all ICG members expressed concerns and I also do
>> not recall these as particular concerns, rather as questions. My
>> recollection supports a wording like:
>> "Some ICG members raised questions about the jurisdiction governing
>> agreements in the IETF proposal. The ICG decided ....."
> Agree that it was some members. To make it even more accurate, we should say
> "Some ICG members raised questions about the statement that the current
> ICANN-IETF MoU "does not specify a jurisdiction" and asked for clarification
> regarding the legal status of the MoU."
>> "Wilson stated that the numbers proposal essentially reflects the
>> consensus among the RIRs."
>> I recollect Paul describing it in more detail which I consider
>> relevant to minute. My recollection would support a wording like:
>> "Wilson described that the numbers proposal was generated by the CRISP
>> team based on open, transparent and inclusive community discussions in
>> all five regions and that it represented the consensus built from
>> these discussions in an open and transparent process."
> I think the earlier statement was more accurate. The latter sounds a bit
> promotional and I think you are putting words in Paul's mouth.
>> could be further clarified like this:
>> "Discussions among the ICG members clarified that the RIRs do not
>> propose to change the way global Internet number policies are made.
>> The RIR response is limited to the implementation of these policies."
> This is much better. More accurate regarding what was actually said.
More information about the Internal-cg