Richard, Thanks for your note. (Reproduced at the end of this e-mail for the benefit of others, just in case we still have an issue with the list not accepting your e-mails. I apologize for the trouble on that, by the way.) I wanted to acknowledge the reception of your note, and the reception of the earlier requests, including the one requesting the co-chairs to provide (further) justification for their conclusions. I also wanted to say that those were considered as a part of the process. A big part of the IESG’s role in approving output from the IETF is making sure that the community has been heard and that there’s broad backing for the particular output. In this case the IESG has been comfortable with the making the decision it has made, having considered the community discussions, including your request. Personally, I am quite comfortable with the decisions in the WG and IESG stages, and believe that they reflect community (rough) consensus. Hope this helps, Jari >> At the end of the working group process, although there was not >> unanimous support for the results, the working group chairs >> concluded that rough consensus existed in the working group. The >> document shepherd’s summary of the WG consensus for this document >> can be found here: >> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/ >> shepherdwriteup/ > > Please add that I requested that changes be made to that writeup so as to > reflect correctly my statements. > > SNIP > >> >> • Discussion of the rationale for concluding rough >> consensus from Richard Hill (responses from Marc Blanchet, Andrew >> Sullivan, Milton Muller, Jari Arkko, Brian Carpenter, John >> Curran, and Jefsey). > > Please correct that to state that I requested that the co-chairs provide a > justification for the rough consensus call. Unless I missed something, the > co-chairs did not provide that justification. > >> Richard was requesting a rationale for why >> the conclusion was what it was, or perhaps rather disagreeing >> with the rationale that was provided. > > No, I was requesting a justification of the rough consensus call. > > SNIP > >> >> • The IAOC has indicated that they are comfortable with the >> direction the document gives for the IAOC. > > Please add here (or wherever else you think it would fit): > > * Richard Hill requested that the IESG defer its decision on this draft > until the submission by the co-chairs of their justification for the rough > consensus call.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail