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