RE: Interim Meeting

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

James,

I know full well when the next IETF meeting is scheduled.  Our interim WG
(even proto-WG) meeting will be held under IETF guidelines, making it an
IETF-affiliated meeting.

The requirements draft has now been published for 10+ months in complete
conformance with IETF policies.  If anyone has issues with it I wish they
would make them known, for there's surely been plenty of time available.

<Scott/> 

-----Original Message-----
From: James Seng/Personal [mailto:James@Seng.cc]
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 7:09 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott; 'provreg List'
Subject: Re: Interim Meeting


> Nothing is ever decided with finality at face-to-face IETF meetings --
> consensus decisions are made using mailing lists like this one.  Those
of us
> who have asked for an interim meeting want to get down to critical
review of
> the EPP proposals, and to that end I think we need to do the following
> between now and 21+ February:

20th Feb is an interim meeting, not IETF meeting. Interim meetings for
WG are not encouraged but not against the rules if approved by the ADs.

> 1. We come to some semblance of closure on the requirements.  The
updated
> draft was posted almost two weeks ago, and I haven't seen any
discussion
> since.  Does that mean I got it right this time?  ;-)

I think the right answer is people are still coming to terms with this
WG and trying to understand the consequences. It would be too early to
say that you got it right.

RIPE have done a good job promoting this in Amsterdam to the European
NICs. There would be a APRICOT meeting end of Feb where Asia NICs would
usually attend. I will try do some "awareness promotion" there so we
could get Asia NICs to join the work here. Their feedback is equally
important.

Yes, this means I wont be able to attend to interim meeting because of
APRICOT. Guess this means one less 'trouble-maker' there. How lucky :-)

ps: The current requirements probably not suitable for them but I shall
leave it to them to explain why.

pss: There are other kind of registries who would be interested in this
work. They should be appropriately be informed. IP, keywords and URN
comes to mind immediately. And probably ENUM/E164, if ITU could get
their head around to understand it.

-James Seng