Re: address directorate ping

[Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>]

[Urgh.  Asynchronous reading due to mail filtering habits;
apologies for not seeing the entire thread before my
earlier reply.]

Randy Bush wrote:
> hmmm.  so it is not valid for us to point to the rirs' open process
> and lists?  seems like a slippery slope to me, i.e. how much of
> their processes should we supplant?  i will have to think about
> this.  perhaps you and leslie should discuss this with the rir
> ceos?
I believe, from my previous discussions with RIR folk
about this theory, that the appropriate thing is for this
group to not have a public component, and that the opinions/
suggestions it provides should then be taken through
normal channels:  liaisons, WGs, RIR open mailing lists
as appropriate.  
I.e., it's got to be a clueful body of people that will
provide solid advice to the ADs, and the ADs are still
responsible for the decisions they make; WGs are still
responsible for the work they do, and so on.  Normal
directorate behaviour, yes?


The charter looks pretty direct; I wonder about adding
"the IAB" to the list of other entities that might use
the directorate as a source of sound input.

I don't yet know the crowds well enough to be able
to detect all of the folk who are RIR-clueful.

Leslie.

> while it is not required that directorates have charters, there
> seems to be some sentiment that this directorate should have one,
> maybe inspired by the growing ietf tendency to be more interested
> in process than product.
>
> for a first draft, see http://ops.ietf.org/add-dir.html
>
> randy

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
    Yours to discover."
                               -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------