Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep recharter

ken carlberg <> Mon, 18 December 2006 14:42 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwJhd-0006mC-NX; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:42:53 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwJhc-0006m4-Va for; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:42:53 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwJha-0000ck-LS for; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:42:52 -0500
Received: from [] by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <>) id 1GwJhW-0005zm-S4; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:42:48 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: ken carlberg <>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] on the ieprep recharter
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:42:52 -0300
To: "Peterson, Jon" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
Cc: Cullen Jennings <>, Sam Hartman <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>


would it be possible to pass along the comments that Sam sent to the  
IESG?  He asked if you could (in response to a message from me a  
couple of weeks ago) in the IETF mailing list, and I would appreciate  
more information on this decision -- at least the information that  
Sam said he felt comfortable sharing.



On Dec 18, 2006, at 10:30 AM, Peterson, Jon wrote:

> To the IEPREP WG,
> After considerable deliberation within the IESG, I am sorry to  
> report that the IESG is not comfortable approving the IEPREP  
> charter as it stands.
> In particular, the IESG is concerned about a perceived lack of  
> focus in the deliverables, and collectively feels that it is  
> difficult to assess the support of the community for this charter.  
> Some of the open-endedness in the charter about non-real-time  
> communications has given rise to questions about the diverse  
> expertise required to complete the work. Concerns about whether or  
> not the IETF is the proper venue for this work continue to be  
> expressed within the IESG as well.
> At this time, the rough consensus in the IESG is that in order for  
> the charter to progress, the community would have to affirm its  
> support for the work in the context of a BoF. The IESG is willing  
> to participate in honing the charter for such a BoF if this is the  
> direction you'd like to take it.
> I am sorry after such a long time to be returning with another  
> negative response. I do believe that the response reflects an  
> informed consensus of the IESG.
> Jon Peterson
> NeuStar, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> Ieprep mailing list

Ieprep mailing list