[Ietf-not43] draft minutes

[Ted Hardie]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:09:00AM -0700, Rick Wesson wrote:
> two points.. one of procedure, why are decisions being made at the meeting
> and not on the list? If the RIRs and the IRRs want out of CRISP then the
> name registries and registrars may want out too. To play fair the topic
> needs to be discussed and consensus determined on the list.

This actually points to a clarification required in the minutes,
as this wasn't a decision reached in the meeting, it was a decision
by the IESG reviewed in the meeting.  The initial agenda for
the IETF listed the meeting as a BoF and the transition to working
group occured fairly close to the actual meeting.  I reviewed
the current charter and compared it to the charter proposed at
the last BoF as an aid to those who might be attending the meeting
anticipating a continuation of the previous BoF.

The charter reviewed was the same as the one posted to the list
and to the ietf-announce and new work mailing lists.  


> secondly, without the RIRs and the IRRs the protocol does not improve ones
> ability to navigate the heiracy of names and number delegations and as
> such I believe CRISP should either solve the problem of all registries or
> not exist.

While I certainly sympathize with that view, the IESG felt that a more
restricted initial charter was appropriate.  They did feel that
extensibility or applicability to other domains could be design
criteria, but that the work items of the group should be focused on
the domain name space.  The first draft of that more restricted charter
was first posted to the list back in late April (see message id
20020425152459.A67618@shell.nominum.com in the archive at
https://lists.verisignlabs.com/pipermail/ietf-not43/2002-April.txt,
and the discussion on it which followed into the May archives).

> I would like to understand how these decisions got made and why we all
> were not consulted in the matter.

I appreciate your concern for process, but I believe this discussion
did occur according to the appropriate procceses.  After the BoF,
the IESG felt a more narrowly scoped effort was appropriate; a draft
charter on that basis was posted and discussed on the working group
mailing list, and a revision of that charter based on those discussions
was posted for review on ietf-announce and new-work.  

If you continue to have concerns on the process, I would be happy to
discuss it with you as, I am sure, would the ADs.

			regards,
				Ted Hardie