Subject: NeuStar consensus (was Re: Progress report......)

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:21:34 -0500 (EST)

Harald sez:
  - We will *share* with the community our opinion that this effort could 
  help achieve a transition with less conflict and uncertainty than going 
  straight from a CNRI-provided secretariat to an open RFP process would.

is there any particular consensus determination mechanism envisioned?

i.e., how will who (IASA, IAD, IESG, IAB, all of the above) figure
out of the IETF community thinks that its a good idea for the IETF
to agree to N years (where N seems to be an unknown value) of NeuStar
before issuing an RFP?

Scott

(ps - my personal feeling is that the general idea is a good one but,
like John, I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered
before IETF community should be asked if it supports the "arrangement"
so that NeuStar can find out, as they say they want to know, if the
IETF community supports their initiative)

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:13:51 +0100

> is there any particular consensus determination mechanism envisioned?

For forming an opinion and sharing it with the community, the transition 
team has so far operated by consensus :-)

> to agree to N years (where N seems to be an unknown value) of NeuStar

My opinion:
First - get the facts out where people can see them.
Second - ask.
We're still on the first item.

FWIW, the two values of N I have heard bandied about are "1" and "2" - and 
that includes the year 2005. I wouldn't ask ANYONE to state a firm opinion 
without knowing that number.

(note: talking about numbers in contracts here, not "what might possibly 
happen at the end of the period".)