RE: State of Provreg

[Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>]

my 2 cents on my own experience on co-chairing:
- if one co-chair is busy because of work/personal/... (it happens to me 
with a new baby last february), then the other one can continue on and the 
end result is that the wg do not suffer from lack of time from the chair.
- co-chairs can separate their work inside the wg (ie. content, ietf 
management, etc...), so their respective workload is less.
- co-chairs can separate their intervention when perception of politics 
arise: i.e. when a co-chair is business involved in an touchy issue of the 
wg, then the other co-chair can take that ball. (Really useful for the 
co-chairing I've done since  a year now...)
- co-chairs can separate the travel when they are asked to provide reports 
to various organisations, conferences, etc... Especially useful, since it 
happens that the travel schedule of the co-chairs is different and 
complementary so the probability is higher that these requests will be 
handled easily
- there is also some drawbacks (more time for discussing the hot issues 
between the co-chairs, etc.), but my own experience is that co-chairing is 
much more useful than the possible drawbacks.

All these arguments can be relevant or not to this working group. My 
current wg co-chairing is probably a bit political... ;-)))

Well, this is just food of thoughts. I'm not saying that the wg should have 
co-chairs.

Regards, Marc.

At/À 10:41 2001-01-02 -0500, Hollenbeck, Scott you wrote/vous écriviez:
>I'm curious about the need for a co-chair.  I've seen only two list messages
>that touch on the topic: one from Geva in which he suggested the idea, and
>one from myself suggesting that if the need is for "balance" we already
>appear to be progressing towards a balanced WG.  Is a co-chair needed due to
>projected work load or some "behind the scenes" concerns that haven't been
>raised on the list?
>
>Scott Hollenbeck
>VeriSign Global Registry Services
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Edward Lewis [mailto:lewis@tislabs.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:04 AM
>To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>Cc: lewis@tislabs.com
>Subject: State of Provreg
>
>
>Currently "provreg" has not yet become a WG.  We need to have a charter in
>place and a second co-chair.
>
>Jaap Akkerhuis, a member of Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland,
>has volunteered to be a co-chair.  (In addition to myself.)
>
>Dave Crocker has been preparing the charter.  Dave, I would like to request
>a reposting of the charter incorporating recent comments provided.  I ask
>the mailing list members to comment on this so it can be submitted to the
>IETF.  Solidifying the charter is the most important work item on our list
>right now.
>
>As soon as Dave puts the current charter on the list, I'll issue a mailing
>list last call.  The last call will be just *one* week.
>
>Once the WG is formalized, we will adopt two drafts to begin ("continue")
>discussion.  One is the protocol requirements document and the other is a
>proposed protocol specification.  Each of these are edited by Scott
>Hollenbeck, and both appear under his name (as we have to WG standing yet).
>
>The current documents, as presented in San Diego are:
>      draft-hollenbeck-grrp-reqs-05.txt
>      draft-hollenbeck-epp-00.txt
>
>There are other epp-*-00.txt's that will be adopted as needed.
>
>When making comments on the documents, keep in mind:
>
>The charter is our roadmap.  We want to set the scope for the work,
>expressing the desired outcome and the schedule.  From what I've gleaned,
>our desire is to specifiy a policy-neutral registrar-registry protocol.
>The protocol should suitable for any registrar to contact any registry,
>regardless of differences in the registries' business models.  *One* reason
>for doing this quickly is have the protocol in place so it can be used in
>the ICANN-gTLD process.
>
>The requirements document specifies what a candidate protocol must do and
>what it should do.  The requirements are not levied on either registry nor
>registrar operations.  I.e., the document does not (and can not) require
>compliance by parties to use the protocol nor to use it exclusively.
>
>We trust that the protocol, when specified, will be good enough and
>desirable enough that registries and their registrars will want to use it.
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
>Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com
>
>"It takes years of training to know when to do nothing" - Dogbert
>
>Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.


Marc Blanchet
Viagénie inc.
tel: 418-656-9254
http://www.viagenie.qc.ca

----------------------------------------------------------
Normos (http://www.normos.org): Internet standards portal:
IETF RFC, drafts, IANA, W3C, ATMForum, ISO, ... all in one place.