--On 16. oktober 2003 14:11 -0400 Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Harald,
It probably isn't a good idea for me to disagree with you publicly
about what our statement means, so I have only included the IESG
list. If you think that I should take this to the wider audience,
then let me know.
I think that both the IESG and the community need to think about this.
I sensed multiple levels in the IESG - including Ted commenting that he
liked the scope description from the small-group statemement better than
what was in the document.
Actually, disagreeing with me in public might be a good thing - it
reinforces the message that the IESG, too, does not regard this as a
finished product, but as input to the discussion.
But what does the rest of the IESG think? Or should we wait until we meet
in Chicago before agreeing to take our disagreements public?
What's been interesting so far is that I've seen little or no objection to
the "the purpose of the IETF is .... standards" part of the statement.
This indicates to me that if we can get "for the Internet" defined right
(and I think you're right in that I was wrong in reusing the term from the
document in my bulleted list of alternatives), we've got a fair chance of
getting something useful out of the discussion.