Hi Roger,
Since we had no objections, I’m about to issue this interim meeting request.
2 small administration questions:
-How long will the meeting last (estimate, I have put 1 hour for now).
-Could you or expected attendees provide a bulleted list of issues you would
like to address or talk about?
("Discuss the most current revision of the Fee draft” for now, but that might
be hard to summarize :-))And for the WG: To give the chairs and organizer a sense of participation, since this will be our first interim meeting, who on this mailinglist is thinking of joining this session? Regards, - -- Antoin Verschuren Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL M: +31 6 37682392 Op 24 jun. 2017, om 18:05 heeft Roger D Carney <rcar...@godaddy.com> het volgende geschreven: > Good Afternoon, > > The latest revision, 05, of the fee draft was just posted. > > I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting to discuss the most > current revision of the Fee draft, draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-05. This latest > draft should account for all comments to this point. > > The meeting will be held Tuesday July 11th, 2017 at 13:00 UTC. We will > utilize Zoom as the conferencing tool, please use this link to connect to the > meeting. > > > Thanks > Roger > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Galvin [mailto:gal...@elistx.com] > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 8:19 AM > To: Jody Kolker <jkol...@godaddy.com> > Cc: Roger D Carney <rcar...@godaddy.com>; Registration Protocols Extensions > <regext@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal > > Yes, please, let’s move forward with scheduling a meeting to discuss the fee > document on 11 July. > > Please take the lead. > > Jim > > > > On 21 Jun 2017, at 11:18, Jody Kolker wrote: > > > Thanks Jim/Antion/Adam, > > > > I fully support having virtual meetings between full IETF meetings. I > > think it would help to move documents along faster. Roger and I were > > discussing having a meeting for the fee document on July 11th. Will > > we be able to have an approved meeting on that day? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Jody Kolker > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > FromR: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James > > Galvin > > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 12:55 PM > > To: Roger D Carney <rcar...@godaddy.com> > > Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: [regext] interim meetings proposal > > > > > > > > On 16 Jun 2017, at 12:40, Roger D Carney wrote: > > > >> Good Afternoon, > >> > >> > >> > >> I think this is a great idea and I think this process looks > >> acceptable. I have just one question and one comment. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > >> Question: To clarify number 3 below "...chairs will handle > >> administrative tasks...summary...", I assume the summary will be > >> provided by the requester to the chairs for correct handling? > > > > Yes, that would be our preference. In fact, to go a step farther in > > detail, if the interim meetings are “one document” meetings, then the > > author/editor will prepare for the meeting with a bulleted list of > > “issues” to discuss. The summary is most likely just the same > > bulleted list with a few sentences or paragraphs (as needed) to state > > the consensus of the meeting regarding the issue. This summary could > > be posted to the list as is, as well as being used as the Secretariat > > summary. > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Comment: As for "...as a replacement for the second WG meetings at > >> IETF meetings...", I would like to see these interim meetings as an > >> addition to and not a replacement. I think the F2F working sessions > >> that we had at IETF-98 were very productive and we should try to keep > >> doing. > > > > Thanks for this. We won’t have this option in Prague unfortunately > > (the Chairs had timing conflicts this time) but I’m interested in > > other points of view for the future. > > > > Jim > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Roger > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James > >> Galvin > >> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 8:41 AM > >> To: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> > >> Subject: [regext] interim meetings proposal > >> > >> > >> > >> In addition to updating our milestones, a few folks have asked us > >> privately for interim meetings to help move along our documents. The > >> Chairs have followed up with our Area Director and in this message we > >> have a proposal for interim meetings for the working group to > >> consider. > >> > >> > >> > >> For reference the IETF has some guidance on interim meetings located > >> > >> here: > >> > >> > >> > >> http://ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Here is what we propose. Please review and comment on the list by > >> Friday, 23 June 2017. > >> > >> > >> > >> 1. Any author/editor from a document on our milestone list can > >> request an interim meeting. As long as there is no objection from > >> the working group the meeting can proceed. In general, the > >> author/editor would be expected to moderate the meeting but anyone > >> can volunteer. > >> > >> > >> > >> 2. The meeting can be a teleconference, which someone will need to > >> provide. You can also have a physical meeting if there is interest > >> and the logistics can be organized by the participants. > >> > >> > >> > >> 3. The Chairs will handle the administrative tasks with the IETF > >> Secretariat. The basics are that the meeting must be reported to the > >> IETF Secretariat, the agenda must be provided, and at the conclusion > >> of the meeting a summary must be provided that includes the list of > >> participants. > >> > >> > >> > >> 4. There are two critical details that must be respected: the meeting > >> must be announced with its agenda provided at least one week before > >> it actually begins, preferably two weeks, and the meeting summary > >> must be provided within 10 days of the close of the meeting. > >> > >> > >> > >> 5. Finally, please note that any actions taken or decisions made at > >> the interim meeting are not final. They must be reviewed and > >> accepted on the mailing list. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> If we can come to a consensus that this is acceptable, with any > >> changes that we agree to during the discussion here, we will adopt > >> this and tell the folks who wanted to have a meeting to suggest it > >> and arrange to have it. > >> > >> > >> > >> If we have interim meetings, these could serve as a replacement for > >> the second working group meeting that we had at the last IETF > >> meeting. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> > >> > >> Antoin and Jim > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> regext mailing list > >> > >> regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> > >> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> regext mailing list > >> regext@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > > > > _______________________________________________ > > regext mailing list > > regext@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > regext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
