[9431] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Aikens last (but long) posting/comments on ISOC and related issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John C Klensin)
Wed Jan 5 09:16:33 1994
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 1994 08:59:10 -0500 (EST)
From: John C Klensin <KLENSIN@INFOODS.MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Your message dated "Wed, 05 Jan 1994 11:55:23 +0100 (MET)"
To: Simon Poole <poole@magnolia.eunet.ch>
Cc: Erik Huizer <Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl>, poole@magnolia.eunet.ch,
X-Envelope-To: com-priv@psi.com
Simon,
>By the very nature of what the CXII WG group intends to achieve or needs to
>put in place to achieve its goals (official representation of the Internet,
>an Internet business model and so on) even with the limited scope the
>consequences are very far reaching and in my eyes totally outside the charter
>of the IETF.
I'm not going to repeat Erik's summary of what has gone on with
the CXII WG *proposal* but will tell you that it pretty well
reflects the perspective of the IESG members who would be most
involved in getting such a WG launched. But I want to stress
one thing that you seem to be missing:
For the same reason that public discussion on the topic of this
thread is appropriate, I would hate to ever see a prohibition on
*discussion* of an issue or proposal by people who happen to
have an IETF affiliation. I would hate to ever see a
prohibition on *proposing* a WG, no matter what its proposed
scope.
But initiating a WG--actually getting one started--requires
approval of the applicable ADs, and review and approval by IESG,
and review and approval from IAB. The CXII *proposal* has
_not_ turned into a WG under the draft charter from which you
quoted. As Erik said in more detail, it won't, either.
So, from your point of view, the system is working: IETF has not
chartered a WG whose charter and scope you think is
unreasonable. Unless you object to the idea of a proposal
being made, what is the problem here?
--john
