[Ieprep] IEPREP working group

ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> Mon, 11 September 2006 19:50 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GMrnE-0005gK-5N; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:50:08 -0400
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GMrnA-0005eh-D0; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:50:04 -0400
Received: from hermes.hosts.co.uk ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GMrZo-0000Cp-3c; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:36:17 -0400
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by hermes.hosts.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <carlberg@g11.org.uk>) id 1GMrZJ-0006JW-UF; Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:35:46 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <E9B3968D-37E5-4D84-ABA9-3B180FC950B3@g11.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:35:58 -0400
To: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: ieprep@ietf.org
Subject: [Ieprep] IEPREP working group
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


I would appreciate it if someone on the IESG could make a statement  
on the status of the IEPREP working group.

Back in June, a strawman re-charter proposal was floated on the  
IEPREP list, and a number of comments, both public and private,  
ensued up to the August Montreal meeting.  And its my understanding  
that the WG was discussed by the IESG at that point.  However, the  
group has not received any official feedback or comments from the  
powers that be.

Now, I appreciate the need for private discussions and the headaches  
in coordinating comments of numerous individuals -- hearding cats is  
probably an easier feat to accomplish.  But at some point, decisions  
need to be made and at a minimum, feedback needs to filter down to  
the interested parties.....even if the comment is "....we are still  
discussing the issues, and this is what is holding up our  
decision.....yadda, yadda, yadda".

I do not wish to embarrass anyone or set of people.  And perhaps the  
topic of IEPREP simply fell through the cracks, but I would really  
appreciate it if someone could step up and inform the IEPREP  
participants of *something*.

kindest regards,


Ieprep mailing list