Re: [ga] [Fwd: [address-policy-wg] ICANN Ratifies Global Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Address Space]

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thomas Narten wrote:
> Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I got the impression that no one on the board actually read this policy 
> > - it is not only vague and subjective, but also has internal references 
> > that are dangling.  Like what is "Item A"?
>
> Boy, comments like this sure are constructive and do much to encourage
> one to participate here. (ha!)

> Of course the policy was read. And discussed.

Given the absence of any record of what was discussed, I can only accept 
your word on it, and I'd like to accept your word on it.

When I was on the board I read almost everything, and it was clear that 
I was usually the only non staff person who did so.

There is one sure sign that materials are actually being read, or not: 
Questions.

No document is so clear that questions do not arise, particularly as for 
many of us English is not our native language.  Moreover, because most 
of ICANN is focused on DNS, IP address policy is, perceived as a deep 
and arcane subject in which individual board members don't have a lot of 
personal expertise to draw upon.

But ICANN's board is a sphinx, never asking questions.  Indeed it often 
seems the board members are afraid to ask questions.

And this is reinforced by the fact that the plan, as approved, did have 
so many subjective, vague, and dangling elements that at least someone 
on the board, had it actually been carefully read (not skimmed), ought 
to have spotted.

> BTW, SSAC reviewed it. Their report is available here:
> http://www.icann.org/committees/security/IPv6-communication-to-ICANN-board-11aug2006.pdf

I didn't say it was a bad policy, merely that there are many indications 
that it is the work of a sloppy draftsman, a board does either does not 
read with care or does not comprehend and which is confused about 
ICANN's mission insofar as it views the RIRs, rather than internet 
users, as the beneficiary against which IP address policy must be measured.

ICANN can prove me wrong - it can make every meeting public, or at least 
post MP3s so that we can hear who is asking questions.

By-the-way, with regard to the question whether board members actually 
read submissions or simply rely on "staff" summaries:  In my comments on 
the .org contract I put in a specific request that if any board member 
reads my comment that they drop me a note to let me know.

So far not a single board member has given me that indication.  It might 
mean that my comments were worthless (I don't think so, since what I 
said was highlighted in the summary), or perhaps everyone was too busy. 
 Or then again, perhaps no board member actually read it.

		--karl--