In a recent post, Doug said this: > Back when we thought this process would finish in our current century, > Scott volunteered to hunt down these domain owners prior to publication.
The snide tone of that (“current century”) compels me to reply as chair, because it is exactly the dredging up of these repeated discussions of long-settled issues that is causing the unreasonable delays that this snark calls out. So let’s be clear, here, about how the chairs will be handling this now for settled issues — by which we mean issues that have been discussed, the consensus process has been followed, and the chairs have assessed the discussion and judged where the rough consensus falls: If ANYONE brings up an issue for discussion and that issue has, in the judgment of the chairs, already been settled as described above, those looking to revisit the discussion MUST provide, up front, clearly, and concisely, an explanation of what, specifically, is different now: what new argument is being made or what new information we now have, beyond what we had previously. It would be in everyone’s best interest if you provide that explanation initially, before we have to ask for it. Please be aware of this and do your best to anticipate the need. Lacking a good reason to resurface a settled issue, the chairs will aggressively shut down repeat discussions that are unproductive and distracting, and that are impeding progress. Barry and Seth, DMARC chairs
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
