Hi all, At an informal Trust conference call[1] earlier today, one of the things we talked about was how the public comment on the IPR agreements could happen. I think it would be good for the Trust to run that public comment itself (and my colleagues seemed to agree). Since the Trust is going to hold the IPR as a service to the Internet community, it seems natural to reach out to the wider community and make sure we're doing it "for the advancement of the science and technology associated with the Internet and related technology." I know we've all believed we were going to go to public comment, but I don't think we said how we'd do it. I have had the impression that people have just been assuming (as I confess I have) that the Trust was going to do it. I can confirm that the Trust has the necessary infrastructure to make it happen. Alternatively, of course, we could just leave each community to run its own thing, but I'm a little worried about how we collate the inputs in that case, given that we'll only have about 2 weeks to do it. We've all got a lot of other things to do, so I thought it might just be easier for everyone if the communities could point to the single Trust comment forum. I don't want to hijack the call tomorrow with this topic, so if people have concerns it'd be great to get them on list in advance (though I understand everyone's busy). A [1] Formally, the Trust couldn't have a meeting today because by the time we realised we'd need it the notice period had been missed. So this was not a meeting of the Trust and no actual Trust decisions have been reached. -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
I think there's been some discussion of each community having their own community, but no decision's been made. I certainly had assumed that there would be a comment period run through the ICANN website, like most (if not all) of the other implementation contracts and other documentation relating to implementing the transition. If you look at the ICANN public comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments, you'll see 2 open public comment periods, as well 3 recently closed public comment periods, relating to the IANA Transition. It would be an odd outlier not to have a transition-related comment in the ICANN public comment system. The ICANN public comment system is transparent -- the comments are announced by ICANN, each "comment forum" (to which the comments are submitted) is publicly available and stays publicly available as an archive (you can find comments going back years, if you want). You can see and read submitted comments in real time. How we deal with the comments after they're submitted is a different question (typically, ICANN staff collates the comments into charts and/or spreadsheets, often with a summary -- the exact process is figured out based on the nature and extent of comments. Whether we do this only from the point of view of the names community (and other communities do their own thing), or this serves as a central comment repository is also something that needs to be discussed. I went looking for the IETF Trust comment infrastructure. I did find links to three public comment periods on the IETF Trust home page at http://trustee.ietf.org/. Two of these link to pdf pages that request the comment. One provides the trustees' email address, while the other does not say how to submit the comment. The third one links to a text page requesting the comment, this one also does not say how to submit the comment. I don't see a public repository of the comments received, or any public summary of the comments received. Overall, it seems from what's available that we're best off using the ICANN public comment tools for this process, based both on its use for other transition-related comments and on the transparency of the tool in question. Greg On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi all,
At an informal Trust conference call[1] earlier today, one of the things we talked about was how the public comment on the IPR agreements could happen. I think it would be good for the Trust to run that public comment itself (and my colleagues seemed to agree). Since the Trust is going to hold the IPR as a service to the Internet community, it seems natural to reach out to the wider community and make sure we're doing it "for the advancement of the science and technology associated with the Internet and related technology."
I know we've all believed we were going to go to public comment, but I don't think we said how we'd do it. I have had the impression that people have just been assuming (as I confess I have) that the Trust was going to do it. I can confirm that the Trust has the necessary infrastructure to make it happen.
Alternatively, of course, we could just leave each community to run its own thing, but I'm a little worried about how we collate the inputs in that case, given that we'll only have about 2 weeks to do it. We've all got a lot of other things to do, so I thought it might just be easier for everyone if the communities could point to the single Trust comment forum.
I don't want to hijack the call tomorrow with this topic, so if people have concerns it'd be great to get them on list in advance (though I understand everyone's busy).
A
[1] Formally, the Trust couldn't have a meeting today because by the time we realised we'd need it the notice period had been missed. So this was not a meeting of the Trust and no actual Trust decisions have been reached.
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
On 5 Aug 2016, at 06:00, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there's been some discussion of each community having their own community, but no decision's been made.
I certainly had assumed that there would be a comment period run through the ICANN website, like most (if not all) of the other implementation contracts and other documentation relating to implementing the transition. If you look at the ICANN public comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments, you'll see 2 open public comment periods, as well 3 recently closed public comment periods, relating to the IANA Transition. It would be an odd outlier not to have a transition-related comment in the ICANN public comment system.
I’d be fine with using the ICANN public comment system, and with each community being encouraged (via community-specific channels) to participate. Alan Barrett
This came up on the CWG call yesterday. I am also OK with using the ICANN system. If so, and consistent with Greg's point, there will likely need to be some discussion as to how comments are processed / integrated. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett@afrinic.net] Sent: 05 August 2016 10:32 To: iana-ipr@nro.net Subject: Re: [Iana-ipr] going out to public comment
On 5 Aug 2016, at 06:00, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there's been some discussion of each community having their own community, but no decision's been made.
I certainly had assumed that there would be a comment period run through the ICANN website, like most (if not all) of the other implementation contracts and other documentation relating to implementing the transition. If you look at the ICANN public comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments, you'll see 2 open public comment periods, as well 3 recently closed public comment periods, relating to the IANA Transition. It would be an odd outlier not to have a transition-related comment in the ICANN public comment system.
I’d be fine with using the ICANN public comment system, and with each community being encouraged (via community-specific channels) to participate. Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Hi, On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:00:08AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
I certainly had assumed that there would be a comment period run through the ICANN website, like most (if not all) of the other implementation contracts and other documentation relating to implementing the transition.
The Trust has a responsibility to run a community comment on this effort no matter what, and we're going to do so. Since the Trust is offering this to the Internet community, we think it only appropriate (and in keeping with the commitments we're making to the other OCs) that we operate this one in a way that is easier and more approachable by the other community participants as well (see below on that), so we're going to need to do something that's public facing, and we will do that no matter what also. I think we're going to be pressed for time after, so running a single process will probably return better results for the transition, but of course the Trust takes no position on how the operational communities ought to do things for their own decision-making. Certainly, if the names community wants to run a comment period through other infrastructure, it's appropriate that it do so and I cannot imagine anyone objecting. It will make our task of putting things together harder, however, and we won't have a lot of time.
IANA Transition. It would be an odd outlier not to have a transition-related comment in the ICANN public comment system.
I note, however, that the actual transition proposal didn't go through that system, because it involved the joint output of multiple communities. I think it would be an outlier if something that involved all the OCs received comments in a forum aimed at just one of them.
The ICANN public comment system is transparent -- the comments are announced by ICANN, each "comment forum" (to which the comments are submitted) is publicly available and stays publicly available as an archive (you can find comments going back years, if you want). You can see and read submitted comments in real time.
ICANN's system, under the hood, is a mailing list. The IETF has some experience with getting input by mailing lists :-) However,
I went looking for the IETF Trust comment infrastructure. I did find links to three public comment periods on the IETF Trust home page at http://trustee.ietf.org/. Two of these link to pdf pages that request the comment.
historically, the IETF Trust had to serve the IETF only, so the Trust ran any comment efforts it had to run through the usual IETF mailing lists. For this case, we're going to instantiate a new mailing list to receive the comments (on just this topic) instead, roughly the way that ICANN does. Given that the IETF already runs dozens of mailing lists that handle volumes of mail orders of magnitude larger than anything that happens in any public comment I've ever seen, I am confident that there will be no problem with the infrastructure. The IETF also keeps mail archives dating even from before the IETF existed. So, I'm not worried about the durability of the archive. I suspect it will be less confusing to people if we have one place to submit comments. But if we have to do it in multiple places, then that's what we must do. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:00:08AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
I certainly had assumed that there would be a comment period run through the ICANN website, like most (if not all) of the other implementation contracts and other documentation relating to implementing the transition.
The Trust has a responsibility to run a community comment on this effort no matter what, and we're going to do so.
GS: I hadn't considered fully the issue of whether the CWG has a responsibility to run a community comment on this effort, since I hadn't thought to frame it in such terms. Having framed the issue that way, I'm hard-pressed to think that the CWG would *not* have that responsibility, given its overall responsibility to the names community with regard to the IANA Transition. How best to discharge that responsibility (and the Trust's responsibility and the numbers community's corresponding responsibility) could be a matter for discussion, if there were some flexibility indicated by all parties. I saw flexibility from the numbers front. The statement above seems pretty inflexible.
Since the Trust is offering this to the Internet community, we think it only appropriate (and in keeping with the commitments we're making to the other OCs) that we operate this one in a way that is easier and more approachable
GS: I assume you mean easier and more approachable as compared to other IETF Trust comments, and not in comparison to the ICANN comment process, which I already find easy and approachable.
by the other community participants as well (see below on that), so we're going to need to do something that's public facing, and we will do that no matter what also.
I think we're going to be pressed for time after, so running a single process will probably return better results for the transition, but of course the Trust takes no position on how the operational communities ought to do things for their own decision-making.
GS: I'm not opposed to a single process, but starting the discussion of a possible single process by saying "my way or not at all" is not optimal from a collaborative standpoint. Personally, I find it harder to consider agreement to a proposition when I'm told that resistance is futile. (I never got "A's" for conduct in primary school, I'll admit, because I tended to question authority....)
Certainly, if the names community wants to run a comment period through other infrastructure, it's appropriate that it do so and I cannot imagine anyone objecting. It will make our task of putting things together harder, however, and we won't have a lot of time.
GS: This seems to assume that under the IETF Trust plan, the IETF Trust would have the task of putting things together. That is not my assumption (and maybe I'm reading too much into this statement, but it's hard not to given the context in which it's being offered). It's probably better to have a discussion (without declarations of pre-conditions or assumptions) and I would urge that stance instead. I would think a discussion along those lines could quickly arrive at an appropriate process that considers the needs of all communities and the IETF Trust (which isn't a community, but rather an arm of a community).
IANA Transition. It would be an odd outlier not to have a transition-related comment in the ICANN public comment system.
I note, however, that the actual transition proposal didn't go through that system, because it involved the joint output of multiple communities.
GS: The actual transition proposal went through the ICG, which was set up for just that purpose, with the input and membership of all the communities, and which was chartered "to coordinate the development of a proposal among the communities affected by the IANA functions," to review and ensure the compatibility of those proposals and to have a single deliverable. The IETF Trust is not that and has not been given those responsibilities.
I think it would be an outlier if something that involved all the OCs received comments in a forum aimed at just one of them.
GS: I would not characterize the ICANN public comment forum as one aimed only at the names community. Comments come in from every quarter (sometimes by the hundreds or even the thousands). By contrast, as you've noted, the IETF Trust's comment forums have so far been aimed solely at the IETF [Trust] community.
The ICANN public comment system is transparent -- the comments are announced by ICANN, each "comment forum" (to which the comments are submitted) is publicly available and stays publicly available as an archive (you can find comments going back years, if you want). You can see and read submitted comments in real time.
ICANN's system, under the hood, is a mailing list. The IETF has some experience with getting input by mailing lists :-) However,
True, but it's part of an overall comment forum set-up that's been working quite well for some time now.
I went looking for the IETF Trust comment infrastructure. I did find links to three public comment periods on the IETF Trust home page at http://trustee.ietf.org/. Two of these link to pdf pages that request the comment.
historically, the IETF Trust had to serve the IETF only, so the Trust ran any comment efforts it had to run through the usual IETF mailing lists. For this case, we're going to instantiate a new mailing list to receive the comments (on just this topic) instead, roughly the way that ICANN does. Given that the IETF already runs dozens of mailing lists that handle volumes of mail orders of magnitude larger than anything that happens in any public comment I've ever seen, I am confident that there will be no problem with the infrastructure.
GS: I don't doubt competence to run an email list. But why build a new thing when something acceptable already exists? (As has been argued on behalf of having the IETF Trust hold the IANA IPR)
The IETF also keeps mail archives dating even from before the IETF existed. So, I'm not worried about the durability of the archive.
GS: Transparency, accessibility (both in absolute and logical terms) and organizing them in an expected place relative to related efforts is important, not just durability.
I suspect it will be less confusing to people if we have one place to submit comments.
GS: I don't doubt we could dispel some modest confusion regardless of what we do, and I don't think that any one solution is necessarily less confusing than any other one.
But if we have to do it in multiple places, then that's what we must do.
GS: We don't have to -- but there's more than one way to come to that result if we approach this in a collaborative manner. I had a classmate in middle school who owned the nicest football in school (NFL quality, and he had taken the time to apply treatments to it just like the pros), but he insisted that he play quarterback if we were going to use his ball, and if we didn't use his ball, he would go home. We tried that for a bit, but ultimately we all felt that didn't work. He did take his ball and go home, and we played with the scuffed and lesser-quality ball (and a variety of quarterbacks), and a slightly awkward air. After a couple of weeks, he came back, initially without his football, and played quarterback some of the time. Ultimately, he threw his football into the pile, without any conditions. Things went quite well after that, and we enjoyed both his ball and his team play.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
Hi, Just to be clear, I'm really not trying to impose anything on anyone. I'm telling you what I think the Trust must do (and which appears to be a thing my colleagues on the Trust think we have to do) based on a conversation I had with them yesterday. I thought the suggestion I was making would make things easier for everyone, but if it doesn't that's ok too. Specifics inline below. On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:30:59AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
front. The statement above seems pretty inflexible.
The problem is that the Trust is taking on a new responsibility -- something we've all acknowledged it was not actually designed to do, and in the service of which it is being pressed in the interests of making the deadline. But given that pressing into service, I can't see how the Trust could possibly be seen to do its duty if it doesn't run a process to get comment on this. And I have to be ultra-sensitive to the needs of the IETF community here, who could (quite reasonably, I think) object to a process that was dramatically different to the way the Trust has done other things with respect to the IETF.
GS: I assume you mean easier and more approachable as compared to other IETF Trust comments, and not in comparison to the ICANN comment process, which I already find easy and approachable.
Yes, that's what I meant. I understand that other communities maybe don't follow ietf-announce with the bated breath some of us weirdos do :)
GS: I'm not opposed to a single process, but starting the discussion of a possible single process by saying "my way or not at all" is not optimal from a collaborative standpoint.
I really didn't mean to suggest that. We do have to run one independent of ICANN. If its convenient for others to ride on that, ok. If not, also ok.
GS: This seems to assume that under the IETF Trust plan, the IETF Trust would have the task of putting things together.
I merely meant that collating comments from multiple fora will be harder than from one. I would not dream of the state where the rest of our collaborators in this effort were not included in evaluating what we receive.
the needs of all communities and the IETF Trust (which isn't a community, but rather an arm of a community).
It isn't actually an arm of the community, though. It's an independent entity and it has independent responsibilities. It's true that formally that responsibility goes in the main to one of those communities (at the moment, solely, but that's what we're trying to fix with the agreements); but the responsibility still rests with the trustees, and we're going to have to discharge that responsibility or be derelict.
to have a single deliverable. The IETF Trust is not that and has not been given those responsibilities.
This is certainly true.
GS: I don't doubt competence to run an email list. But why build a new thing when something acceptable already exists? (As has been argued on behalf of having the IETF Trust hold the IANA IPR)
ICANN, the corporate entity, is giving up this IPR, and it was not especially keen to do so when the idea was first floated. So I am worried about an issue of optics to begin with. But in addition, the ICANN system is quite foreign to the community who indirectly appointed me a trustee, and I don't think it is reasonable to ask those people to learn a new way to send me comments when I'm taking on new responsibilities. (In particular, the step where I have to follow a URL every time I post a public comment catches me up just about every time I send one, and I've sent a lot of them over the past couple years. We just work differently. No big deal, but it affects how people perceive these matters.) So, from the Trust's point of view I believe that we have to run a procedure that is independent of ICANN's system, and I would be surprised if I could convince the Trust otherwise. I note that I've been surprised before! A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Up-leveling a bit in this discussion, step 1 is getting to documents that we can actually send for public comment :-) lets not lose sight of that task yet. Only couple of days left. But secondly, there’s certainly a need to tell all of our communities about the documents once we have them, and have all them be able to comment. So all of us have to be sending notices to our communities. Then there’s the actual place where you submit comments. We at the IETF Trust feel we have to run an public review comment period, and that in this case (since we’d be serving more than the IETF) we feel that we have to have a comment period that is open to everybody. But that is not to say that others do not need or can not run their own processes. Certainly at least that notice has to go out to all communities. We’re happy for others to use the facilities that we’re setting up for sending and seeing comments, if you want to. Jari
We could have the IETF Trust run the public comment, but put notice on the normal places for each of the OCs. That would make sure that everyone is aware of the opportunity to comment. Russ On Aug 5, 2016, at 12:00 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there's been some discussion of each community having their own community, but no decision's been made.
I certainly had assumed that there would be a comment period run through the ICANN website, like most (if not all) of the other implementation contracts and other documentation relating to implementing the transition. If you look at the ICANN public comment page at https://www.icann.org/public-comments, you'll see 2 open public comment periods, as well 3 recently closed public comment periods, relating to the IANA Transition. It would be an odd outlier not to have a transition-related comment in the ICANN public comment system.
The ICANN public comment system is transparent -- the comments are announced by ICANN, each "comment forum" (to which the comments are submitted) is publicly available and stays publicly available as an archive (you can find comments going back years, if you want). You can see and read submitted comments in real time.
How we deal with the comments after they're submitted is a different question (typically, ICANN staff collates the comments into charts and/or spreadsheets, often with a summary -- the exact process is figured out based on the nature and extent of comments.
Whether we do this only from the point of view of the names community (and other communities do their own thing), or this serves as a central comment repository is also something that needs to be discussed.
I went looking for the IETF Trust comment infrastructure. I did find links to three public comment periods on the IETF Trust home page at http://trustee.ietf.org/. Two of these link to pdf pages that request the comment. One provides the trustees' email address, while the other does not say how to submit the comment. The third one links to a text page requesting the comment, this one also does not say how to submit the comment. I don't see a public repository of the comments received, or any public summary of the comments received.
Overall, it seems from what's available that we're best off using the ICANN public comment tools for this process, based both on its use for other transition-related comments and on the transparency of the tool in question.
Greg
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: Hi all,
At an informal Trust conference call[1] earlier today, one of the things we talked about was how the public comment on the IPR agreements could happen. I think it would be good for the Trust to run that public comment itself (and my colleagues seemed to agree). Since the Trust is going to hold the IPR as a service to the Internet community, it seems natural to reach out to the wider community and make sure we're doing it "for the advancement of the science and technology associated with the Internet and related technology."
I know we've all believed we were going to go to public comment, but I don't think we said how we'd do it. I have had the impression that people have just been assuming (as I confess I have) that the Trust was going to do it. I can confirm that the Trust has the necessary infrastructure to make it happen.
Alternatively, of course, we could just leave each community to run its own thing, but I'm a little worried about how we collate the inputs in that case, given that we'll only have about 2 weeks to do it. We've all got a lot of other things to do, so I thought it might just be easier for everyone if the communities could point to the single Trust comment forum.
I don't want to hijack the call tomorrow with this topic, so if people have concerns it'd be great to get them on list in advance (though I understand everyone's busy).
A
[1] Formally, the Trust couldn't have a meeting today because by the time we realised we'd need it the notice period had been missed. So this was not a meeting of the Trust and no actual Trust decisions have been reached.
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
_______________________________________________ Iana-ipr mailing list Iana-ipr@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-ipr
participants (6)
-
Alan Barrett -
Andrew Sullivan -
Greg Shatan -
Jari Arkko -
Jonathan Robinson -
Russ Housley