[DNSOP] Re: [Int-area] draft charter for new DNS WG

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Jim,

> On Nov 2, 2026, at 8:43 AM, Jim Reid <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 2 Nov 2026, at 16:20, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Nice to see a short charter!
> 
> Thanks Bob. Let's keep it that way. :-)
> 
>>> The IESG will decide whenever some aspects of DNS protocol activities are best carried out in other WGs. When this happens, those topics will be out of scope for the name-to-be-decided WG.
>> 
>> Strongly suggest this be left to the relevant ADs and w.g. chairs.   Not everything needs a full IESG decision.   
> 
> I think this is nit-picking. Sometimes these decisions could be for the ADs & co-chairs, sometimes they won't. The IESG is ultimately responsible for taking these decisions or delegating them to the appropriate AD(s) and/or WG co-chairs(s). We shouldn't need to spell this out in the WG charter.

I disagree.  As written it would have to go to the IESG.   Leave it to the ADs and w.g. chairs to decide if it needs to go to the IESG.

For example, in 6MAN we frequently have discussions if a new work should be in 6MAN, Spring, or Int Area.   I can’t remember when the IESG got involved.

> 
>> Who are "other appropriate organizations” mean?  Citing some examples would be good.
> 
> I had in mind the likes of ICANN, DNS-OARC, CENTR and the DNS-related WGs in RIR-land. There are sure to be others. Compiling these sorts of shopping lists and adding them to a charter is a bad idea IMO. Updating a shopping list will mean rewriting the WG charter. Let's not go down that rathole.

Not if they are cited as examples.      I also think the ones you listed are much more relevant for DNSOPS, not for protocol maintenance group.

Bob