Re: [atoca] The future of atoca

["Bradner, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

I also think the is very important 

but we need to actually have text in front of us to discuss & progress

as a chair, I am willing to keep trying but there is a limit

Scott



On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> I have hesitated to respond to this because I'm part of the problem.  However, here goes:
> 
> I think the work of atoca is important.  I think it's VERY important.  We need better tools for authority to citizen alerts.  
> 
> We have been unable to muster enough effort.  We need to fix that to be viable.  It may be too late.
> 
> So, I will make a pledge:
> a) I will contribute a draft in this next cycle
> b) I will respond to threads on the list aggressively
> c) I will start threads to try to reach consensus on requirements and mechanisms
> 
> I ask for others to take the same pledge.
> 
> I understand that I, and others, should have already done all of that.  Guilty.  I will understand if it is decided that we had our chance and lost it by inactivity.  But I will ask for another chance to get good work done.
> 
> Brian
> 
> On Jul 22, 2012, at 9:34 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> 
>> I'd note that closing the working group and closing the mailing list are not one and the same thing. 
>> 
>> Mailing lists can exist without the continuation of the working group.
>> 
>> So as and when interest does arise, and activity on the mailing list identifies this, either drafts can be discussed and prepared for individual submission, or a new working group can be chartered and the work resumed as chartered activity.
>> 
>> Keith
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>> Art Botterell
>>> Sent: 21 July 2012 18:41
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [atoca] The future of atoca
>>> 
>>> Mark makes the essential point, IMHO.  This working group may simply have
>>> been ahead of its time.  So if the WG format isn't appropriate... I don't
>>> really have an opinion on that... I hope we can find some way to keep a
>>> less formal conversation going among folks who are interested, in
>>> anticipation that relevant issues may come clear over the next few years.
>>> 
>>> - Art
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 21, 2012, at 6:12 AM, Mark Wood wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I Repeat;
>>>> 
>>>> The matter of using public networks for authority to citizen
>>> communication
>>>> is only just now becoming a mainstream topic. We just did not have a
>>> model
>>>> for such before the deployment of ETWS in Japan and now CMAS in the USA
>>> in
>>>> 2012.
>>>> 
>>>> Now that we do have such systems is the time to address the matter.
>>>> 
>>>> I deduce that anyone wanting to obtain a licence for a public mobile
>>> network
>>>> will have to have some sort of method of realising the same burdens that
>>> are
>>>> now placed on the cellular network providers. The wording of the
>>>> requirements will probably be non technology dependent, so the same
>>> burdens
>>>> will be a requirement for all system technologies.
>>>> 
>>>> We have not had this conversation yet, and we need to have it now that
>>>> CMAS/ETSI has finally just arrived (after a long gestation period).
>>>> 
>>>> It will probably take at least another year to understand what the
>>> issues
>>>> are before we can make any submissions to the IETF.
>>>> 
>>>> Mark wood DRCF.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> atoca mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> atoca mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca
>> _______________________________________________
>> atoca mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca
> 
> _______________________________________________
> atoca mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca