[lir-wg] ICANN Reform

>> some of the RIRs seem have a tradition of making policy in the back
>> room and voting on engineering in group face-to-face meetings with
>> very random proposals which almost all get voted 'yes'.
>> 
>> needless to say, but i'll say it anyway, for an ietfer this seems
>> ill-considered.
> 
> Please name horse/rider and cite chapter/verse, *then* we can discuss
> more meaningfully.

at kokura and rodos:

  o political changes with icann were not discussed anywhere except
    in plenary, and were done as presentations by the 'powers', not
    formative open discussion.

  o things such as golden v6 allocations for anything 'important'
    were discussed in a wg, voted (with almost no representation by
    folk who run routers, i.e. will pay the costs), and done with
    long laundry lists of ideas for who might deserve golden
    prefixes, and all were approved.  it was a childish land grab.

> For the RIPE NCC my impression is, that the policy process is
> suffering from *too much* confidence of the community in the RIR
> rather than too little.  This tends to make all parties
> complacent and mistakes can happen.

the RIRs don't have a tradition of open fora for the political
issues.  heck, we did not used to have these political issues, so
no surprise.  but this means we need to create these processes.

similarly, the world used to be O(100) engineers.  technical and
addressing policy was made in global consensus, often coordinated
by jon postel and the iana.  we've grown.  we now try to distribute
the process.  but, in doing so, we have lost the technical core
(which did things such as cidr etc) and have a large influx of
well-meaning folk who, unfortunately, do not have the experience or
the scars.

so, no blame.  but we are slipping sideways in non-good ways.

randy