Re: Interim Meeting

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

Scott,

I am not against the interim meeting and in fact, I think it is a good
idea. It is a pity (or perhaps lucky) I wont be able to attend it.

Your reqs spec has been published as an individual I-D, largely ignored
by the other community because they see it as primarly NSI focus with
your registrars. I know you it wasnt meant to be but that is the
perspective share by others.

Now, if it is a WG I-D, i think we need to go out and correct the
perspection that it is not just an NSI I-D. It is beyond that and it is
going to come back haunt them if they dont take note now.

Your I-D will make great input to this going-to-be WG. But as an WG I-D,
I think it is safe to safe to say that we need more reviews beyond your
registrars. I am sure the other registries have their comments too so
why not hear them out?

Unless of course you mean you couldnt care less about what the rest of
the registries thinks...in that case, I shall rest my case.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: Interim Meeting


> 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
>
>