Hello JFC, I speak only for myself in my answer. The IETF community was invited to volunteer for these positions. I view the positions as akin to the liaison manage roles usually appointed to by the IAB, and it does not seem to me that the IESG is doing anything unusual in the way it is choosing these representatives. There are email lists on which the subject matter can be discussed in order to get a good view of the concerns and possibly of consensus within the IETF. The representatives being appointed by the IESG are intended to represent the IETF. Adrian > Dear Adrian, > > this is an embarassing situation as no one knows who are the > candidates, their positions, and the criteria of their selection. > Nor, by the way, what the IESG agenda may be concerning the IETF > position regarding the ICANN process. IMHO the most appropriate > solution for a technical body should be to consider the best and the > worst cases and make sure that the technology can cope with both of > them, most probably with a delegate being specialized in each extreme case? > > Otherwise, along RFC 6852, this is encouraging users and operators > considering contingency situations where solutions could be asked > for, proposed and implemented, "regardless of their formal status". > This is exactly the situation where I put myself as a Libre > non-profit ISP having to protect the best symetric (inbound/outbound) > access to my members. > > I do not worry too much due to the actual flexibility of the > technology but I am definitly sure that the solutions I will > implement in case of difficulty will not be those advocated by the > ICANNTIA project, as they would be the source of that difficulty. > Since many of other operators and users will proceed the same in > their own unknown way, some by local regulations or national law, > without prior MSist coordination, the result may turn out to be > technically operational but politically confuse, and difficult or > even impossible to globally concert again. This would then be the end > of the IETF as a global body or even worse if the situation degenerated. > > This kind of situation is scientifically known as "SOC", > self-organizing criticality. This is the way nature and history > usually work, by way of catastrophes. I think this is a point worth > considering, more over than most of the people who will actually take > these decisions are not (like me, but this is its own decision) on > the IETF list. > > jfc > > PS. for your information most of the positions I will take in an a > difficult situation will be documented in the French language for my > French fellow users. I suppose that other ISPs will proceed in the > same manner. Not to consider an ICANNTIA failure and train us in > advance may lead to contradict RFC 3935 which states that "The IETF > uses the English language for its work is because of its utility for > working in a global context."