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

[Owen DeLong]

>> 
>> 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. 

The problem with -discuss is that it has a limited subscriber base (-discuss
is limited to ARIN members). -consult strikes me as being equally inappropriate
to PPML and I think a dedicated list for this purpose is more appropriate.

The availability and subscription instructions should be sent to -discuss, -consult,
and -ppml, but that should be sufficient.
>> === 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. 

+1 to this… Multipart questions on a survey are almost always frustrating to me
as I almost always find myself wondering how on earth I can possibly express
which pieces I agree or disagree with.

> 
> 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?

Count this as a vote for the latter (scale, including a neutral center).

> 
>> 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.

Indeed, though my gut answer to the question as posed is “Absolutely NOT!”

We definitely have a role and a position.

> 
> 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.

+1

Owen