On draft reply to SSAC
Hi, In the item 3.b. question 2 draft response, it isn't clear to me how the first sentence responds to the question. It seems to me that the answer can start with "Since the standing committee makes recommendations…," continuing to the end. (This has the happy consequence also of removing the proposed make up of the committee from consideration. If any of those bodies were to decline the invitation to participate that premise would be weaker. But if we can just discard the premise in the argument without harm, then we might as well do so.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
As the drafter of the section on the standing committee, I can live with either formulation. I don't think there is much chance of one of those groups not participating given the potential risks. So I leave it up to the co-chairs to select. Andrew, I presume you meant item 3.C, not B. Alan At 05/08/2015 01:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi, In the item 3.b. question 2 draft response, it isn't clear to me how the first sentence responds to the question. It seems to me that the answer can start with "Since the standing committee makes recommendationsÂ…," contiinuing to the end. (This has the happy consequence also of removing the proposed make up of the committee from consideration. If any of those bodies were to decline the invitation to participate that premise would be weaker. But if we can just discard the premise in the argument without harm, then we might as well do so.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 08:45:40AM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As the drafter of the section on the standing committee, I can live with either formulation. I don't think there is much chance of one of those groups not participating given the potential risks. So I leave it up to the co-chairs to select.
I actually think thre's a real chance that the IETF won't, not because it doesn't want to but for lack of resources. Standing committees -- particularly ones that do a lot of work on telephones or (worse) at in-person meetings -- are not really a thing the IETF does normally, and we have a tiny number of people who are even remotely interested in this problem. I don't think I can state strongly enough how different the ICANN way of working is to the way the IETF normally operates. It's a completely different culture. So, while I think it would be bad if the IETF didn't participate, I do not have a hard time imagining that it could fail to do so. Note this is just my opinion. I do expect the IETF (via the IAB, I presume) will try to find a candidate.
Andrew, I presume you meant item 3.C, not B.
I must've misread. Thanks for catching. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
At 06/08/2015 09:17 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 08:45:40AM -0400, Alan Greenberg wrote:
As the drafter of the section on the standing committee, I can live with either formulation. I don't think there is much chance of one of those groups not participating given the potential risks. So I leave it up to the co-chairs to select.
I actually think thre's a real chance that the IETF won't, not because it doesn't want to but for lack of resources. Standing committees -- particularly ones that do a lot of work on telephones or (worse) at in-person meetings -- are not really a thing the IETF does normally, and we have a tiny number of people who are even remotely interested in this problem.
I don't think I can state strongly enough how different the ICANN way of working is to the way the IETF normally operates. It's a completely different culture. So, while I think it would be bad if the IETF didn't participate, I do not have a hard time imagining that it could fail to do so. Note this is just my opinion. I do expect the IETF (via the IAB, I presume) will try to find a candidate.
Andrew, I presume you meant item 3.C, not B.
I must've misread. Thanks for catching.
Best regards,
A
OK, as I said, I could live with either and leave it up to the co-chairs. For the record, although I have not been active in the IETF, I have a several decades of peripheral involvement and well understand the IETF working processes. Alan
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan