Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (ieprep)

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:23:33 -0500

Sam,

Back on Nov 1'st, you started this thread with the following:

 > I'm speaking here as an individual.  I'd like to build consensus
 > for my position both within the IESG and within the community,
 > but I realize that if I fail to build that consensus, I cannot
 > make this objection as a single IESG member.

Its now been about 2 weeks since the last comment was sent on this  
thread.  Do you feel you have reached consensus?

-ken

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

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:45:33 -0500

>>>>> "ken" == ken carlberg <[email-masked]> writes:

    ken> Sam, Back on Nov 1'st, you started this thread with the
    ken> following:

    >> I'm speaking here as an individual.  I'd like to build
    >> consensus for my position both within the IESG and within the
    >> community, but I realize that if I fail to build that
    >> consensus, I cannot make this objection as a single IESG
    >> member.

    ken> Its now been about 2 weeks since the last comment was sent on
    ken> this thread.  Do you feel you have reached consensus?

I sent my IESG comments two weeks ago, and Jon should be following up
with the WG chairs.

---

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:31:49 -0500

> I sent my IESG comments two weeks ago, and Jon should be following up

Since I (and most of the IETF list) don't have access to that private  
correspondence, I don't know if your comments addressed my above  
question of whether you feel there was consensus reached given your  
original statement/position.  I won't ask you to repeat your private  
comments, but I would appreciate your feedback on my question given  
the amount of correspondence on the IETF list concerning this thread.

As a side note, I'm a little surprised that your concluding(?)  
remarks were made in private.  When I had sent you a private comment  
on this thread a couple of weeks ago, you had responded with a desire  
that I keep my correspondence in public.  I guess its just me, but it  
just feels that your action is a bit inconsistent.

regards,

-ken

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:29:41 -0500

>>  I sent my IESG comments two weeks ago, and Jon should be
    >> following up with the WG chairs.

    ken> Since I (and most of the IETF list) don't have access to that
    ken> private correspondence, I don't know if your comments
    ken> addressed my above question of whether you feel there was
    ken> consensus reached given your original statement/position.  I
    ken> won't ask you to repeat your private comments, but I would
    ken> appreciate your feedback on my question given the amount of
    ken> correspondence on the IETF list concerning this thread.

If Jon doesn't mind I'd be happy to send out my comments.  They were
made in private because that seems to be current IESG practice--to
give the chairs an opportunity to respond before any public comment is
made.

I don't have an easy answer for you.

I walked into the discussion on ieprep thinking I knew what the
charter meant.  The discussion on the ietf list convinced me I don't
understand the charter and a lot of other people don't to.  Much of my
comments were about believing that if we're going to go forward,
perhaps we should work on that.

The discussion on the IETF list suggested reasonably strongly that
regardless of what you think of the ITU, some of the things the
charter contemplated doing don't really fall within the ITU's mandate.

There was very little support outside of those involved in the ieprep
working group for the ieprep work.

I'd have to say that there wasn't really a clear consensus in either
direction about much of anything.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:24:54 -0800

On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> There was very little support outside of those involved in the  
> ieprep working group for the ieprep work.
>
> I'd have to say that there wasn't really a clear consensus in  
> either direction about much of anything.

I guess I'm confused. Generally, when I see last calls on charters, I  
see no discussion at all. Generally speaking, the people who want a  
working group to happen are the ones who want to work in it. The  
people who don't expect to work in it don't have much to say on the  
topic - the routing people don't comment on network management  
charters, and the internet folks don't comment on applications.  
Asserting that there is consensus to do or not do anything in such a  
case is pretty tough; the point is that there is a body that wants to  
do the work, and the IETF does it.

What is different in this case is that there was some discussion. You  
stated that you thought it should go to the ITU. Pekka agreed with  
you, and Brian stated that he was wondering which way it should go.  
Scott brought in the SG13 liaison, who was in the process of sending  
a liaison statement to the IETF asking for certain work to be  
accomplished. Martin pointed out that ATIS has a place for certain  
aspects of the work. Ken, James, Bob, Janet, and myself tried to  
present a case that the issues before the house were in fact  
appropriate to the IETF.

Am I misremembering?

What I read is that there were some people who didn't plan to be  
involved and either wanted to move the work elsewhere or were asking  
the question, and some people who wanted to do the work and felt it  
was appropriate to the IETF because it related to IETF protocols and  
to the Internet. In most cases, people that don't plan to be involved  
don't respond; in this case a few did.

I'd hate to hear that the presence of a discussion in the IETF was  
taken as a lack of consensus on a topic.

---

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:23:11 -0500

I'll echo Fred's comments, and just add this...

> direction about much of anything.

your original note asked about consensus of closing the group --  
that's the focus of the discussion point you brought to our attention  
on this list.  if you're now arbitrarily changing the basis of the  
discussion point, then its really impossible to point out a weakness  
in your conclusion or decision.  that's frustrating and winds up  
being pointless for anyone else to engage in a debate

-ken