Subject: [ietf-provreg] EPP, data, actors, and access

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:15:57 -0800

Eric,
	Sorry that you weren't able to make the San Francisco meeting
as one of the real advantages our face-to-face meetings afford is
the opportunity to get high bandwidth immediate response.  I think
we have identified ways forward on this issue in this week.  Given
the press of events during the week, they are not expressed in drafts;
I'm sure they will be expressed in drafts as soon as we all have a 
chance.
	After the ProvReg meeting gets a sense of the room on the
discussion, all of these conversations will be confirmed on the list,
so you will have a chance to discuss them.  As the incoming AD here,
I am trying to catch up on all this as fast as I can; I appreciate the
patience of the group as I work out what I can do to help us all
make progress.
				regards,
						Ted Hardie

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:06:25 -0500

Ted,

> I think we have identified ways forward on this issue in this week ...

I've no idea what this means. We (possibly a different value of "we")
thought we were getting consensus around a proposal (<dcp> manditory),
some time prior to this week, e.g., last week.

As to timing of meetings, I don't attend meetings held in belligerant states
during periods of belligerency. It is dangerous, it requires acts of active
cooperation with the security regimes of the belligerant state(s), and is
an endorsement of belligerency. I'd rather not.

Eric

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:48:30 -0800

>some time prior to this week, e.g., last week.

We = some set of people.  It's not important yet, what is important 
is whether or not the WG as a whole also agrees.

Let's not worry about the source of the proposal, let's worry about 
the quality of the proposal.

During the face to face meeting on Thursday, we will systemically not 
come to a conclusion.  The best use of the time is as a "bull" 
session, to throw ideas back and forth for some amount of time (the 
amount given is a function of the relative usefulness of the 
conversation).  At the end of the bull session, it will be the job of 
the chairs to prepare something to put in the list and to then begin 
the process of drafting an approach acceptable to the group as a 
whole.

Consensus is not achieved by voting, but by arriving at a set of 
statements that are acceptable to (nearly) all with a stake - WG 
members, IESG, and the silent masses following this work.  Let's put 
it this way, if we want to rent a car, if 80% of the WG wants to 
require a red one and the other 20% wants blue, we'll settle on 
wanting to just rent a car.

>an endorsement of belligerency. I'd rather not.

Absence is perfectly permissible, after all the IETF is a volunteer 
organization.  The sentiment expressed is that it would have been 
keen to have you in attendance so that we could more quickly arrive 
at a common understanding of the problem.  It is our fault if you 
feel the need to defend your choice not to travel.  (I'm *not* going 
to define "our." ;))

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer