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

[Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

Understood. I personally agree that more information should be made
available and that we could do a better job of making the information
that is actually available more accessible (e.g., how many people knew
that SSAC issued a report after reviewing the IPv6 policy?)

This is something the board continues to discuss.

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

Right. For better or worse, most of the board discussions (and the
additional private ones between various subsets of interested persons)
can't/won't be public. I believe I do understand the arguments for and
against more transparency w.r.t. to board discussions. But my personal
experience is that one has to allow for closed discussions. It's just
not possible/practical to get the same level of frankness and
give-and-take if people are worried about their every email message or
questions will be scrutinized by, e.g., bloggers.

And, FWIW, I'd come to that general conclusion from having worked a
long time in the IETF (and on the IESG) where many of the same
arguments/issues came up.

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

To clarify: the public has little to no visibility into the individual
questions board members ask. But I think one needs to be careful about
speculating what goes on internally within the board.

> 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.

I suspect many would agree that the policy itself could be clearer in
some areas. That said, the policy was evaluated in a much larger
context, one that includes the very long process between its inception
and its arrival at the board.

And folk should remember that this is the first RIR policy to be
evaluated under an MOU between ICANN and the RIRs that was approved a
year ago. So the review (actually some would say "ratification")
followed the adopted procedure.

> I didn't say it was a bad policy, merely that there are many
> indications that it is the work of a sloppy draftsman,

Does that point to a problem with the ICANN board, or to the process
that produced the document that reached the board? The policy was a
consensus document produced by all 5 RIRs according to their
processes. There were numerous public presentations, last calls (or
equivalent), etc.

> 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.

Are you implying that this policy is not good for internet users?
I.e., they do not benefit? If so, please provide specifics. (I really
am interested in this topic). I also believe that this policy has
pretty much no direct effect on end users. Even the indirect effects
are very limited.

> 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.

The board has had many (almost too many, IMO) discussions on this
exact topic. There is no consensus that the positives of doing this
outweigh the negatives. I'm sure there will be future discussions. :-)

> 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.

FWIW, I've read some of the posted comments. I've also followed this
list and reviewed some of the individual comments sent to the board
(which I think mostly or all ended up in the public comments). I also
reviewed the staff summary. From all that, I feel like I have a pretty
good sense of what people are saying (and I too thought that the staff
summary was pretty good). I can't say (honestly) if I read your
comment (probably not, because I think I would have remembered your
comment!), but I doubt I would have responded to your request to send
email directly.

Thomas