Hi,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 03:05:21PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> While I suspect that what you describe is sufficient in practical terms,
> operationally, there is nonetheless such a long-established practice of
> including this bit of procedural requirement into a foundational document
> like this that it seems quite odd not to have it. There.
Thanks for the feedback, and I'm sure the IAB will take it into
account. For whatever it's worth, the way it's phrased was not an
accident.
The problem that I see, at least, is that this group to which we are
appointing is quite a new one to us. This is for a few reasons:
1. The IETF Trust is organized for the _benefit_ of the IETF, but
this activity of it concerns the interests of two other
operational communities. The CCG is there to advise the Trust on
behalf of the three OCs (three CCG members for each OC). So we
feel it's a little delicate, especially at the beginning; and we
want to be sure there isn't any foundational document issue in the
event some early alterations are needed. (In my personal opinion,
a number of the procedures around the IANA transition were someone
overspecified, presumably because of the difficulty of fixing
things in the names operational community post-transition.
Fortunately, our community doesn't have that problem and I'd like
to ensure the maximum potential for flexibility now, when we are
most likely to need it.)
2. One of the wrinkles about the CCG is that each co-chair is
empowered to speak on behalf of its respective community without
necessarily having to consult with anyone. I understand the
practical reasons by this was necessary, but particularly in the
early going it could become a source of contention, and again the
opportunity for maximal flexibility seemed important.
3. It is super strange for the IAB to be appointing people to a
joint body that is designed explicitly to be "representative" and
that has voting. I suppose the liaison to the ICANN board is like
this, but that liaison can't vote. This novelty again suggests to
me that, while we have this basic plan in mind, we might find that
things work rather differently than we expected.
To me, it'd be better to get started with the barest minimum
specified, see how it goes, and then do an update later once things
are clearly stable.
This is just my personal opinion, note, and I'm not speaking for the
IAB.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx