[CWG-Stewardship] On draft reply to SSAC

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Aug 6 16:30:10 UTC 2015


At 06/08/2015 09:17 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>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

OK, as I said, I could live with either and leave it up to the co-chairs.

For the record, although I have not been active in the IETF, I have a 
several decades of peripheral involvement and well understand the 
IETF working processes.

Alan 



More information about the CWG-Stewardship mailing list