[ARIN-consult] ARIN Community Consultation on the ICG RFP Response Process

[Andrew Dul]

On 10/1/2014 8:35 AM, ARIN wrote:
> As a part of the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) system, the ARIN
> community has been called to contribute to the ongoing global
> multistakeholder discussion on the IANA Stewardship Transition. The
> feedback from the ARIN community will be part of the contribution
> provided by the Number Resource Organization (NRO) to the IANA
> Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) in response to their
> recent “Request for Proposals (RFP) for ‭IANA‬ Stewardship Transition
> Proposal‬.” https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en
> ‬‬‬‬‬‬
>
> We would like to know how you believe ARIN should be facilitating this
> dialog, and propose the following process for developing the response
> from the ARIN region:
>
> 1) Discussion in the ARIN community will take place during ARIN 34 and
> through a mailing list consultation from 13 October to 27 October.
> 2) ARIN will conduct a community survey and publish the results to aid
> in the discussion. The survey will be open for one week, 13 - 20
> October, and those results will be posted by 24 October 2014.
> 3) After the initial community discussion ends on 27 October, the ARIN
> staff will produce a draft summary document by 3 November for community
> review. The document will note consensus positions and any significant
> points where consensus could not be achieved.
> 4) After community review, a final document (including any material
> comments from the review) will be sent to the Number Resource
> Organization for compilation into a single RIR community input to the
> ICG.
>
>
> In this community consultation, ARIN seeks your input on the following
> questions:
>
> 1. Is the process outlined above for response development in the ARIN
> region sufficient or are any changes needed?
>
> 2. Do we need a dedicated mailing list in the ARIN region for conducting
> the community discussion on this topic, or does an existing ARIN list
> such as arin-consult, arin-discuss, or PPML suffice? If a new list is
> created for this purpose, should it be prepopulated with subscribers
> from another list?

I would suggest not using PPML, but other existing lists (such as
-discuss or -consult) could be appropriate.  I'm not opposed to a new
separate list for this discussion.  We have also discussed if a global
list is more appropriate rather than another RIR specific list. 

>
> 3. ARIN intends to conduct a community survey from October 13 to October
> 20th to aid in development of a response - please review the three draft
> survey questions (attached) and provide any suggestions or comments for
> improvement.

Could ARIN describe how it intends to publicize the survey to ensure
that the feedback gathered represents a significant portion of the
Internet community which is interested in participating in this process?

>
>
> === Draft ICG Response Survey Questions:
>
> Survey Question 1 – Do you agree that the following are the primary
> priorities for the ARIN community?
> • There should be minimal operational change – the current processes for
> IANA operation and related policy-making are effective and allow for the
> participation of all interested parties.
>
> • Any new oversight mechanism should incorporate and build on the
> existing RIR community, policy-making processes.
> • The RIR communities are ultimately accountable for the management of
> those IANA functions relating to management of the global Internet
> number resource pools, and this should be reflected in any new oversight
> mechanisms.
>
> Survey Question 2 – Do you agree that a model for IANA oversight
> endorsed by the ARIN community should include the following elements?
> • ICANN has historically managed operation of the IANA functions well,
> and should continue to do so at this time.
> • The IANA functions operator must be answerable and accountable to the
> communities that it serves. The number resource community is represented
> in such accountability processes by the membership-based Regional
> Internet Registry organizations.
> • Funding arrangements to cover the staff, equipment and other
> operational costs associated with operation of the IANA functions should
> be transparent and stable.
>
> • Efforts should be made to maintain the IANA functions as a “bundle”,
> managed by a single operator.
> • This does not necessarily imply a single, central point of oversight
> authority – any oversight mechanism should reflect the legitimate
> authority of different communities for specific functions as they relate
> to number resources, domain names and protocol parameters.
>

While I understand the desire to limit the number of questions on a
survey to improve response rate.  Having multi-bullet statements about
which one might agree/disagree with different parts doesn't seem like
the best way to approach getting feedback from the community.  I'd
suggest that perhaps each bullet deserves the ability to respond
independently. 

What type of scale or answer set is being proposed here?  Yes/No?  Or a
range strongly disagree to strongly agree?  With or without a neutral
center response?

> Survey Question 3 –Does this community feel that it has no position, per
> se, on ICANN accountability mechanisms (other than the principle that
> DNS community must be satisfied with that process before any IANA
> transition)
>
This seems like a somewhat leading question with lots of assumptions.  I
think this community would have a very different opinion on
accountability mechanisms if the mechanisms chosen by the DNS community
did not satisfy the concerns of the numbering community.

The survey should include an open text box (not related to any question)
to allow those who choose to complete the survey to provide free-form
feedback.

Andrew