Re: [eppext] rechartering

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EppExt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Marc
> Blanchet
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 11:02 AM
> To: Andrew Newton
> Cc: Patrick Mevzek; eppext
> Subject: Re: [eppext] rechartering
> 
> 
> 
> On 29 Jul 2015, at 7:33, Andrew Newton wrote:
> 
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> …
> 
> >> At the end of the day, I think what could be used as a criteria is:
> >> will this kind of merge in topics foster more work and feedback, and
> >> hence going forward faster, or will it make no change?
> >>
> >
> > I agree, that's an important question to ask. If the additional topic
> > is
> > too large for this working group, that would be a bad thing. But to
> > date,
> > EPPEXT has not exactly been high volume. That being said, we also
> > wouldn't
> > want to derail the backlog of EPP extension work with new RDAP work
> > items.
> > Therefore the proposed charter text states that the initial focus
> will
> > be
> > EPP work.
> 
> I disagree with putting a priority in the (new) charter. I think this
> is
> just a triage function that can be done by the chairs, depending on
> which topic needs more priority. We may end up having epp-ext-1 and
> rdap-ext-4 be higher priorities than epp-ext-2.  Again, just a chair+wg
> triage function to me.
> 
> I also think that the level of work is not too heavy and can easily be
> handled in a single working group.
> 
> Here is a proposal for the working group name: regext  (REGistration
> protocols EXTensions)

I like that...

Scott