[Forwarded: Re: New Procedures Cover Memo]

stev@ftp.com Mon, 01 May 1995 14:15 UTC

Date: Mon, 01 May 1995 10:13:22 -0400
Message-Id: <9505011413.AA09205@mailserv-D.ftp.com>
To: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: [Forwarded: Re: New Procedures Cover Memo]
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: stev@ftp.com
Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Mon May 1 10:13:09 1995]
Originating-Client: d-cell.ftp.com
Content-Length: 2702

must be an odd month (since the even months i hear nothing . . ) who
is the new contact person?

>From tfrost@attmail.com  Fri Apr 28 13:57:04 1995
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 10:33:49 -0400
From: tfrost@attmail.com (Thomas F Frost)
Phone: +1 908 234 8750
Subject: Re: New Procedures Cover Memo
To: jwheel@attmail.com (John L Wheeler), sleistne@ansi.org (Stacy Leistner),
        lrajchel@ansi.org (Lisa Rajchel), Smith@isocs.iso.ch (Michael Smith),
        J.Houldsworth@ste0426.wins.icl.co.uk (Jack Houldsworth),
        stev@ftp.com (Stev Knowles), pbartoli@attmail.com (Paul Bartoli),
        carson@siggraph.org (George Carson),
        yasuda@nttvdt.ntt.jp (Hiroshi Yasuda), @mhs.attmail.com
Cc: mtopping@attmail.com (Marisa Topping)
Content-Type: Text

Jack,

Regarding the New SC 6 Procedures for Development and Approval of Standards in
Cooperation with the Internet Society, I agree with the general direction and 
objectives that the procedures are attempting to achieve.  I do have some  
comments on specific sections as indicated below from an SC 18 perspective.  
At this point, these are my comments only, and do not necessarily represent 
the position of SC 18 since the document has not formally been further 
distributed within SC 18.

Section 1.  Electronic mail communication and voting

SC 18 has a similar email distribution list and a similar objective for 
electronic distribution and balloting although so far usage has been light and
some National Bodies do not have email capabilities.

Section 2.  NPs

I am not opposed to personally performing the activities of:
- determining the need for collaboration on specific standards, 
- reaching agreements with the IETF Chair, and 
- drafting NPs for those projects,
especially if it would facilitate the collaboration process.  However, I would
do so in consultation and with the assistance of, at least, the appropriate SC
18 WG Convener(s).

SC 18 would have to agree to the 4 week electronic balloting period for the SC
18-level NP ballot.  SC 18's current NP balloting period is 3 months.

Section 6.  The notification should come from the WG Secretariat.

While SC 18 would have to agree to the 4 week electronic balloting period for 
the CD/PDAM ballot, the Directives state a three month ballot period.  JTC 1 
would have to agree with this (and with the implementation of the new DIS 
balloting procedures, the duration of the CD ballot period will become more 
critical).

Section 7.  I agree with the objective of resolving the comments via email 
correspondence.  If a meeting is scheduled, it needs to be scheduled and 
convened "in accordance with the JTC 1 Directives".

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Tom

[Forwarded: Re: New Procedures Cover Memo] stev