Richard, (I am copying once again your e-mail at the end, in case it didn’t otherwise make it to the list archives.) First, I wanted to say that I agree with Andrew said. Secondly, I wanted to assure you that your opinion and comments are on record, have been noted and thought about, even in those cases where we did not say anything specific about them. Your specific issue in this case was brought up in the IESG discussion, for instance. Thanks for the feedback. The summary that I sent (or any other similar messages) should not be taken as a detailed list of everything that went on. They are high-level summaries, and written in my words, characterising the situation as I see it. They are beneficial as brief explanations, but the real record is the detailed discussions, e.g, on the list. But I can change my summary to read: "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). Richard was requesting a justification (beyond information already available) for why the conclusion was what it was, and deferring the IESG decision." For what it is worth, I think there was certainly enough information in the thread labeled "draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response moving to next step”, the shepherd writeup, and of course as well in the overall process that the working group went through. Jari --- Original message from 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. > > Since you say "further justification", it seems that I missed something, > because I don't recall seeing the justification from the co-chairs for the > rough consensus call. Perhaps you could point me to it? > >> 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. > > I don't recall seeing any statement from any IESG member to the effect that > he or she had considered my request not to proceed to approve the draft > until the co-chairs had provided a justification for the rough consensus > call. Perhaps I missed some relevant statements explaining why my request > was considered but rejected. > >> 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, > > See above. > > And please note that the changes I requested to the sheperd write-up with > respect to my statements have not been made (see below), so that write-up > does not correctly reflect what I said during the disussions. > >> >> 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. >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ianaplan mailing list > Ianaplan@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail