[CWG-Stewardship] On draft reply to SSAC

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 08:45:40AM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> As the drafter of the section on the standing committee, I can live with
> either formulation. I don't think there is much chance of one of those
> groups not participating given the potential risks. So I leave it up to the
> co-chairs to select.

I actually think thre's a real chance that the IETF won't, not because
it doesn't want to but for lack of resources.  Standing committees --
particularly ones that do a lot of work on telephones or (worse) at
in-person meetings -- are not really a thing the IETF does normally,
and we have a tiny number of people who are even remotely interested
in this problem.

I don't think I can state strongly enough how different the ICANN way
of working is to the way the IETF normally operates.  It's a
completely different culture.  So, while I think it would be bad if
the IETF didn't participate, I do not have a hard time imagining that
it could fail to do so.  Note this is just my opinion.  I do expect
the IETF (via the IAB, I presume) will try to find a candidate.
 
> Andrew, I presume you meant item 3.C, not B.

I must've misread.  Thanks for catching.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com