Re: a personal opinion on what to do about the sub-ip area

[Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>]

Scott Bradner wrote:
> for what it's worth here is my personal opionion on what we should
> do in the question of the sub-ip area
>
> I think we should go with the status quo (with the IESG selecting two
> volunteers to manage the area next March)
>
> I do not think that we can make a reasoned decision to do otherwise in the
> next week.
>
> Before Atlanta I was of the opinion that moving the WGs into other areas
> was the right thing to do, not because of any particular event, but
> more because we had said this was a temporary area and it was getting
> to be a long temporary (but I suppose we should note that the last
> temporary area (ipng) lasted 4 years)  But the feedback we got in
> Atlanta has convinced me that this is not reason enough to make a change.

I'll add that most of the attendees at this meeting in Atlanta were from 
the WGs themselves. It is unsurprising that the overwhelming position of 
that group is to maintain the status quo. Moving them is definitely seen 
as unwelcome change from within the groups themselves.

It would be useful to hear from the community at large regarding this 
issue, rather than letting the group decide (essentially) for itself.

FWIW, I have yet to see a substantive justification for the _creation_ 
of a new area yet. I, and others, have pointed out that the 'status quo' 
here is to let the area dissolve on schedule.

Joe