IAB expects to decline SC 22 Category C liaison

[Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>]

This issue has been evolving for a long time -- 18 months,
anyway.

Without going into details of the history (though I can, if people
feel it would be necessary/useful),  the IAB originally
understood there was an offer of a Category A liaison
(allows us to propose new work), and ISO changed the
ballot to SC 22 proposing a Category C liaison.  Note
that all our other ISO liaisons are Category A.

It is the IAB's intention to decline the Category C
liaison (as it doesn't do anything/enough for the IETF),
pointing out that we are still open to a Category A
liaison.

Now, my point (at last!):  at a high level, that's
the appropriate response; but I'd like to be sure that
this is okay with the folks that may actually work
with SC 22's WG 20 (internationalization).  I think
that might be Patrik, but I could be wrong.

Thanks,
Leslie.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: SC 22 Approval of Category C Liaison with IETF
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:42:41 -0500
From: Matthew Deane <mdeane@ANSI.org>
To: 'Leslie Daigle' <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
CC: 'John Hill' <John.Hill@eng.sun.com>



Dear Ms. Daigle,

First off, let me apologize for the very delayed response.

At the 2001 SC 22 Plenary, the following resolution was passed:

/Resolution 01-18: Letter Ballot - Establishment of Liaison with IETF/
/In response to the request from WG20 (N3284) to establish a liaison 
with IETF, JTC 1/SC22 instructs its Secretariat to issue an SC22 Letter 
Ballot on the following:/

/The Internet Engineering Task Force has requested a Category A liaison 
with ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC22. The Rationale for this request is contained in 
document N3284. ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC22 agrees instead to offer IETF a 
category C liaison with ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC22./

/Unanimous/

As the request came from a SC 22 working group and members felt that a 
Category C liaison would accomplish all of the specifics of the request, 
they decided that it was 
more appropriate to offer a Category C liaison.  The subsequent letter 
ballot request to the resolution was approved, and thus the Category C 
liaison relationship was offered.

If IETF wishes to resubmit the request with rationale as to why Category 
A is more appropriate, I will be more than happy to re-circulate the 
request to SC 22 members.

Best regards and Happy Holidays,
Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:leslie@thinkingcat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 4:50 PM
To: Matthew Deane; 'John Hill'
Subject: Re: SC 22 Approval of Category C Liaison with IETF



Matthew, John,

As John (Klensin) noted, when the liaison was proposed to the
IAB last year, it was for a Category A liaison.  Having had
the opportunity to discuss your note, the IAB would like
to understand the basis for the change in Category.

Could you provide more background on what has transpired
in the past year?

Thanks & best,
Leslie.
For the IAB.

John C Klensin wrote:
> Matthew (and John),
>
> I stepped down as IAB Chair (and as an IAB Member) last March.
> The responsibility for responding to you on this offer of a
> Category C liaison now rests with my successor, Leslie Daigle,
> who is copied on this note.
>
> I assume that she, and the IAB, will respond in due course.
>
> However, speaking only for myself and without any consultation
> with the IAB, an observation and suggestion:  Acting on what we
> took to be the good-faith request of an SC22 WG and after some
> discussion, IAB approved a Category A Liaison from IETF to SC22
> over a year ago.  SC22 chose to unlaterally alter that approval/
> proposal to one for Category C and then ballot it.  So it seems
> to me that, as a matter of courtesy, IAB should be supplied with
> the rationale for that change before you request any
> justifications from the IAB for any actions it does, or does
> not, take.
>
> regards,
>     john
>
>
> --On Monday, 09 September, 2002 15:19 -0400 Matthew Deane
> <mdeane@ANSI.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi John,
>>
>>Long time coming in this response.  I apologize for the delay.
>>
>>Via letter ballot, JTC 1/SC 22 members approved a Category C
>>liaison with the IETF.  Please let me know if this is
>>acceptable to the IETF.  In past messages you indicated that
>>the IETF only accepts Category A liaisons, so I won't be
>>surprised if this liaison offer is rejected.
>>
>>Also, so that all SC 22 members are informed, I plan to
>>circulate your response to SC 22 membership.  Therefore, you
>>may want to send a short reply as to why IETF does not accept
>>the liaison (if this turns out to be the case) and some brief
>>rationale.
>>
>>Let me know if you have any questions.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Matt
>>JTC 1/SC 22 Secretariat
>>
>
>
>


--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"An essential element of a successful journey
   is recognizing when you have arrived."
      -- ThinkingCat (c.1983 - 2002)

Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------


--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"An essential element of a successful journey
   is recognizing when you have arrived."
      -- ThinkingCat (c.1983 - 2002)

Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------