--On Saturday, June 07, 2014 09:49 +0300 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > For your information: additional details about the process and > the coordination group are now available, here: > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014- > 06-06-en Jari, I find one aspect of this document and the ongoing selection process very troubling. The work and schedule of the Coordinating (nee Steering) Committee seem completely open-ended, both with respect to time commitment and to resource requirements (including the potential requirement for travel to a potentially continual road show of meetings. This new document is worse in that regard than its predecessor because both the schedule of meetings and the mission of the Coordinating Committee have become open-ended. Unlike many of the appointing groups, the IETF is not in a position to underwrite those costs, i.e., to cover costs of time-salary and/or travel to the various meetings so as to spread those costs across the relevant community. The net effect is that the only people who can plausibly represent the IETF are those who: (i) Work for organizational entities with considerable resources and willingness to provide open-ended support their employees in this type of work, (ii) Have significant (even if not "too much") free time and resources on their hands, or (iii) Consider this particular part of the work really, really, important. I suggest that most people who fall into one or more of those categories are not what we would normally consider representative of the IETF community, much less representatives of the diversity of this community (and note that "diversity" is a new criterion). Especially for the first category above, there is also a considerable potential for conflicts of responsibility and interest if organizations with significant stakes in this process have employees or others appointed through both IETF (including IAB) and other constituency models. Perhaps it is the best we can do, but, especially since members of that committee represent themselves once appointed, I think it would be wise for the IETF to publicly note the issues and create some distance from this process. That would be especially important if "we" eventually conclude that we have to reject its final conclusion/ recommendations. I also suggest that, if current IAB or IESG members decide to do this and give it priority, the upcoming Nomcom should give careful consideration to its impact on their current and potential effectiveness in the roles to which prior Nomcom appointed them as well as the overall effectiveness of those bodies. best regards, john p.s. Personal note: despite personal interest in this, involvement as an advisor to IANA since the late 1970s and early 1980s, key roles in ICANN's creation and intermittent involvement since (as liaison to the Board, advisor on multiple issues (especially IDNs and i18n), and occasional consultant, I'd not putting my name forward for this role. The reasons are ultimately connected to the remarks above: I have no funding for an open-ended commitment that could involve significant time and travel and I'm already overextended on work I feel I need to do for the IETF. Especially with the added requirement for "diversity"