[Internal-cg] Contracting

[Jari Arkko]

> I would support a message from the ICG reminding everybody that they are expected to follow the open processes, but I would want such a message to avoid any reference to rumours or allegations of wrongdoing.

I agree with Alan on this. 

I would also caution people to not get too worked up on various impressions about what is going on. Rather, stick to the facts as communicated by the relevant parties. For instance, in addition to the original text from Andrew, I also posted an important note from Theresa in the thread "[Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] Ominous update on the IANA transition”. I am not saying that the IETF is happy in current state of affairs*, but there’s a world of difference between legal issues and an attempt to synchronise every IANA-related change to the same time vs. an attempt to change the results of community processes behind the scenes.

Jari

*) We definitely would like move forward, and we of course believe our existing MoU provides certain processes. But, if it were any other year than the transition year, I’d wager that no one would have lift an eyebrow in our SLA additions. Or the RIRs. And not doing every piece of a big project at the same time is of course project management 101. Particularly when the IETF and RIR efforts are in my mind housekeeping that we could have done at any time, not fundamental changes to the setup.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150502/4b326941/attachment.asc>