Re: [atoca] The future of atoca

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: atoca-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:atoca-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Art Botterell
>> Sent: 21 July 2012 18:41
>> To: atoca@ietf.org
>> 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
>>> atoca@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> atoca mailing list
>> atoca@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca
> _______________________________________________
> atoca mailing list
> atoca@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/atoca