--On Saturday, June 07, 2014 09:49 +0300 Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> 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"