Re: Transition

[[e-mail]]

Carl,

I am very concerned about an overly aggressive timeline which is 
an undercurrent in your message.  

I would like to see the following happen in November:


	The ISOC gives a detailed presentation on their vision
	for whatever the IAB/IETF is supposed to be and 
	why the ISOC is a good organization for the 
	IAB and IETF (or whatever follows ) to incorporate
	under.  Open discussion of this should follow.
	I know the IAB already has a charter, the discussion 
	would still be useful for most people.

	Poised group reports and there is detailed discussion 
	of the issues during the Thursday eve. plenary.

	Concise charter for the IETF developed.
	(The sources could be from anywhere -- IAB, POISED, etc.)

	I would like to see consensus developed for the IETF to 
	incorporate under ISOC.  (This reveals my bias which is that 
	many feel this is a good idea but that the IETF as a whole 
	has not bought in.  ).

For me, everything else is secondary.   Shouldn't the entire Thursday
night plenary be organized around this?  I would suggest Steve
Coya and Megan Davies organize this and have them moderate the evening
(a suggestion that someone else made at the last IETF which I thought
was a Good idea).  The ISOC, IAB, IESG  and representation from the
POISED effort should be set up front to present on these topics and
subsequently follow up with discussion.

I apologize for not stepping up to some of these tasks, but like 
many IETFers I am busy pushing other rocks up hills.  It is also one
of the reasons I think many are uncomfortable with an overly
aggressive schedule; we need more time to  internalize 
what the organization of the IETF should be, and whether it is 
demonstrably better than what we have today.

cheers,

peter