Re: [hrpc] HRPC recharter

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Dear colleagues,

Usual disclaimer still in effect.

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 02:15:03PM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>
>Interesting - the IAB seems to think differently about this:

I did try to make clear in my note that this was my opinion and experience.  I'm not surprised that others have a different opinion or experiece.

>Would be very welcome if you could substantiate your claims, including the ones you made in your previous emails.
>

I think it would be tedious to re-hash discussions that have already happened.  I am reporting how I experienced this group.  I suppose people are welcome to offer their experiences, too, which are presumably different than mine.

>>But if policy-makers are having this forum advertised to them as a 
>>way to influence "the IETF" or a way to inject policy considerations 
>>into IETF procedures, that _is_ an issue
>
>This, again, seems to be unsupported claim that is not based in concrete text or data. It would be great that if people speculate they indicate they do so, it is a research group after all.

I'm not sure what claim you think is being made, since that's a conditional proposition.  What I can report is that I have had interactions with policy-makers who have _referred_ to this RG's output as IETF work.  Indeed, at the last RG meeting the chairs put up a slide referring to the research group as a working group, so I am not entirely sure the confusion is only outside the IRTF/IETF community.  This is a long-standing sore spot about the use of the RFC series and how "RFC" gets deployed rhetorically, and is therefore not only related to this RG.

>
>I don't think any part of any discussion has been to inject politics, but trace them and map different positions on it [0].
>

I am not at all surprised that is your belief.  But I will note the reference you make is one of those cases where I decided I couldn't contribute anything more.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]