[Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals]

[Milton L Mueller]

Narelle:

The minutes can say "Item was not resolved."
Then we can take it up at the next meeting or on the list - IF someone wants it on the agenda
It makes no sense, however, to say classify as an "action item" an unresolved discussion. I hope we can agree on that simple point.

This discussion is no longer about "the specific topic" that triggered one of the endless loops. It was about how calling non-action items action items can confuse people and waste time.

--MM

From: Narelle Clark [mailto:narelle.clark at accan.org.au]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 4:16 AM
To: Jennifer Chung; Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals]

I'm not convinced that is the right thing to do...

I suspect a better approach is to say in the meeting:
"okay, we are not resolving this item within the time available, shall we:

1.      Identify the open explicit question

2.      Designate an individual to track status of the question"
Then we would track the status of the open explicit question.

In this particular instance, my personal view is that the specific topic was answered. Happy to be proven wrong.


Narelle


From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Thursday, 9 April 2015 3:21 AM
To: 'Milton L Mueller'; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals]

Hi Milton,

Noted- the Secretariat will remove references to continued discussion as an 'action item' going forward.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:00 PM
To: 'Jennifer Chung'; 'internal-cg at ianacg.org'
Subject: RE: ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals]

OK, thanks.
In the future, I would suggest that we not classify "let's continue discussion of <something> on the list as an "action item."

;-)

--MM

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 12:13 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: ICG Call#13 Action item 3 [was RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals]

Hi Milton,

Call 13, Action Item 3 stems from the discussion from pg 2-3 of the 11 Mar minutes v3, attached and reproduced below in full:


*        Arasteh reiterated his request to clarify the jurisdiction issue regarding the current IETF-ICANN MoU.  He further requested clarification on the management of the coordination of the three operational communities as referenced in the protocol parameters proposal (pg 13, section IV<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09>).

o   Regarding Arasteh's first point, Arkko stated that it was his recollection that the jurisdiction issue was resolved during the face-to-face meeting, and that it was clarified by Arkko and Housley that IAB is the final arbiter for any issues between ICANN and IETF.  Arkko stated that the ICG agreed (and have sent) a question to the operational communities relating to the IPR (domain names and trademarks of iana.org).

o   Regarding Arasteh's second point, Arkko stated that coordination between the three communities in the IETF process is described in various RFCs and has been a point-to-point coordination between the communities that has occurred many times without issue.

*  Arasteh requested that Arkko put the above explanation in writing for clarification and discussion.  Arasteh further emphasized that the jurisdiction issue is a legal issue that should be properly addressed, and the current answer of 'IAB' is insufficient in his view.

*  Arkko stated that the IETF community has produced a proposal that explains the IETF process, including accountability mechanisms, and that the community's opinion is clearly reflected in the document.  Arkko offered to provide further information in an email to the internal-cg mailing list regarding practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal), but emphasized that he cannot change the protocol parameters' proposal itself.

*        Adobe Connect chat: Mundy and Housley agreed with Arkko regarding his view that the ICG members cannot change the community proposal.

*        El Bashir suggested that the ICG continue discussion of this matter on the internal-cg mailing list
Action Item 3: The ICG to continue discussing on the internal cg-mailing list about: 1) jurisdiction issue of the current ICANN-IETF MoU; 2) the practicalities of coordination between the operational communities (referred to in the protocol parameters proposal and referenced RFCs).

Please let me know if you have questions or need further clarifications re the above.

Best Regards,

Jennifer

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 11:45 AM
To: Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals

Jennifer
This summary is good, I wrote my last message before I had seen this attachment with the summary of arguments.
However, while this is excellent summary fulfills action item 2 from ICG call #12, I still am not sure what the action item #3 from call #13 is.

--MM

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:33 AM
To: internal-cg at ianacg.org<mailto:internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Subject: [Internal-cg] Summary of internally resolved questions re the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals

Dear All,

As requested by Jean-Jacques on the recently concluded call regarding this action item:

ICG Call #12, Action Item 2: ICG to discuss and call for volunteer/pen holder on the internal-cg mailing list to consolidate information collected during the assessment process of the operational communities' proposals in an ICG report that can be published together with the final proposal

Please find attached the chart consolidating questions and answers discussed during the assessment process for the Numbers and Protocol Parameters proposals.

Dropbox link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wad3entgv3dqr3m/Summary%20of%20internally%20resolved%20questions-v2.xlsx?dl=0

Best Regards,

Jennifer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150416/06c78bae/attachment.html>