Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP working group

Mpierce1@aol.com Wed, 20 September 2006 21:47 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQ9uQ-0006oP-Pp; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:47:10 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQ9uP-0006lH-T3 for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:47:09 -0400
Received: from imo-m22.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.3] helo=imo-m22.mail.aol.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GQ9uM-0004Sh-JW for ieprep@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:47:09 -0400
Received: from Mpierce1@aol.com by imo-m22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id l.463.1e206e00 (65098) for <ieprep@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:47:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mpierce1@aol.com
Message-ID: <463.1e206e00.324310d5@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:47:01 EDT
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] IEPREP working group
To: ieprep@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10689
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <ieprep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ieprep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org

In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:49:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
carlberg@g11.org.uk writes:


> I'm at a loss as to why there is still no response of *any kind*  
> regarding the status of the IEPREP WG and its proposed revised  
> charter.  I and others have sent private email regarding this matter  
> in the past couple of months with no response, and the email (below)  
> sent to a more public forum has also generated _no_ response.  (and  
> please keep in mind, I'm talking about a response as opposed to an  
> action/decision)
> 
This seems to be the result of an organization in which the leaders, rather 
than the members/participants, make the decisions. In other standards bodies, 
the members have the decision making power. The leaders don't.

In this case, it was obvious (to me, at least) that many (most?) of the 
leadership were against the IETF working on this subject. After all, Emergency 
Telephone Service presumes that certain individuals are authorized to get priority 
service, and they must be authorized by governments to do so. And it is quite 
apparent that the IETF wants to ignore the existance (or needs) of 
governments.

Maybe the "leadership" can prove my accusations wrong by taking positive 
steps to recharter/sanction IEPREP to do real work toward satisfying the 
requirements that various governments have for emergency communications.

Mike Pierce

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep