Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)

S Moonesamy <> Sun, 12 July 2020 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B413A086E; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 14:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.124
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DEAR_SOMETHING=1.973, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TFZn7d9qhTof; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 14:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3163A0869; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 14:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 06CLIcPX026086 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 12 Jul 2020 14:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1594588731; x=1594675131;; bh=kIwopzt/WasAyskgZSLeCBtZPgLqg5KL1MPhXsIRFng=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=sp665iDO7PehYiFBkbDT88YimMHmcyJ0Upz5jVatIDo3NN1NG3+N0RByFqUTFxW4q PtmG/ws7/7LFKeTACBg9YChgBgpSEsa4wqojw7kCGFSTzLmif7iN6Jk0d8wCIN0vZ2 aRdnZYSpDL48/CkadjqJPpj1wKPgYkj0MQOzu9mI=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 12:08:58 -0700
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 21:19:02 -0000

Dear Internet Engineering Steering Group,

On 26 June, the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) sent an 
email about a draft charter.  The email requested comments about the 
draft charter to be sent by 6 July.  I sent some comments on 27 June 
to the IESG.  I received an email from the Ms Cooper on 9 July.  I 
also had an email exchange with Mr Leiba on 10 July in which he and I 
discussed some points related to draft charter.  One of the points 
was about a "process violation".  I was surprised to see an 
announcement from the IESG about the new working group being formed 
while the matter was still under discussion.

RFC 2026 (BCP 9) states that "If an individual should disagree with 
an action taken by the IESG in this process, that person should first 
discuss the issue with the IESG Chair".  Given that I disagree with 
the above-mentioned action of the IESG, would it be possible to first 
discuss the issue?

S. Moonesamy