--On Monday, 04 November, 2013 09:16 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/4/2013 8:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> It is clear that there is no
>> consensus about exactly what to do and it doesn't seem likely
>> that one will emerge.
>
> FWIW, even though this was meant merely as part of some
> example text, I've heard similar assertions offlist and want
> to note that I believe this conclusion is premature.
>
> There has been nothing even close to a serious attempt to
> pursue IETF rough consensus on specific text for this polichy.
>
> Worse, the deadline of this week that Jari cited a) was not
> previously announced, and b) is entirely artificial. While
> pursuing this topic expeditiously seems reasonable, we've been
> given no basis for deciding that it had to be in place by this
> week.
>...
I agree with most of this and claim that most of my comments
apply whether one assumes that we can reach consensus on text or
not. Part of the difference in our perspectives/ assumptions is
that your note seems to assume that we are in agreement on
principles and merely need to agree on text. I believe that,
if we did agree on principles, it is reasonably likely that we
could reach rough consensus on text.
I don't think we are there yet. In particular, I've seen no
convergence about whether it is appropriate to discuss sanction
and what such sanctions might be. I've seen no convergence
about whether an ombudsperson model is viable and, if it is,
whether there is a practical "training" model for folks within
the community and a reasonable model for how such people might
be appointed. In each case, objections or concerns that seem
sensible have been raised about the direction in which the IESGs
appears to be headed.
YMMD about those concerns (and others), but I suggest that there
is at least a reasonable hypothesis that we are nowhere near the
point at which there is enough agreement about principles to
make agreement about text particularly meaningful.
john