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."
At 20:06 21/06/2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:
The IESG (minus any ADs who have put their names in as candidates)
continues to
consider the appointment of two IETF representatives to the ICANN consultative
process on the transition of IANA from NTIA stewardship and thanks all of the
people who have put their names forward.
Alissa Cooper has been selected as one of the two representatives,
and the IESG
is still considering all of the other candidates to select a second person. We
want to stress that our failure to select a second representative does not
reflect badly on the quality of the candidates, but rather results
from the care
that the IESG is taking over the decision.
There is an initial ICANN meeting on this topic in London next week
and the IESG
will not have made its selection of the second representative in time for the
meeting. Therefore, the IESG is delegating Alissa Cooper as the representative
of the IETF's interests at that meeting. Jari Arkko will also be in attendance
in his role as the IETF Chair and can, of course, speak to IETF
concerns as they
arise.
The IESG plans to resume consideration after the London meeting and make its
selection of the second IETF representative before the July 2nd deadline.
Thanks,
Adrian Farrel for the IESG
_______________________________________________
Internetgovtech mailing list
Internetgovtech(_at_)iab(_dot_)org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech