Subject: RE: [Ieprep] Re: more process discussion

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:23:30 -0500

> the
> community is also looking for full openness about what the potential 
> sources of bias
> are in any given person's stated views.  Direct funding to 
> participate 
> in an effort
> on <foo> is a potential bias.  We all hope it does not actually 
> translate into an
> actual bias, at least within the IETF's scope.

I have supported DISA in the past and NCS operations in the present.  My
co-chair duties are funded by SAIC overhead.  I strive to maintain
impartiality and provide my personal best in this co-chair role.

Kimberly
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: "Folts, Harold" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:36:05 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of RJ Atkinson
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:52 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: ieprep
> Subject: [Ieprep] Re: more process discussion
> 

 	So woody is right that the IETF's hope is that one will
> represent
> one's own
> views -- particularly when those conflict directly with sponsor's 
> views, the
> 	Hal's seeming reluctance to participate directly and
> respond in a
> timely manner
> to questions directly relating to his employer's goals has not helped 
> things at all,
> IMNVHO.  It sure looks from the outside that Hal is trying to 
> cover up 
> his
> financial relationships with various DISA contractors who are 
> participating in
> this WG and that appears that he's trying to use that obscurity to 
> further his
> private agenda. This fosters widespread suspicion and mistrust, 
> whereas openness
> from the get go would have done quite the opposite.

Ran,

First let me apologize for my silence over the past week in responding to
the list. I have been on travel and my Internet access was very limited and
extremely slow (very high error rate) - to the point of being totally
unusable. I did manage to receive most of the traffic, but timely responses
have not been possible. I now have some 200 emails from the list to catch up
with, so I hope to provide some response in the next day or so as I plow
through these along with my other workload.

The issue of who represents who and the notion of personal agenda is an
unnecessary diversion from the discussions. You could say that anybody
expressing views on the list has a personal agenda. All this pissing contest
does is detract from substantive discussion.

I do not represent any "personal" agenda. I do not in any way have
'financial relationships with any DISA contactors". I am on detail to the
NCS from NASA, who issues my paycheck. NCS is a confederation of 22 Federal
Departments and Agencies - visit http://www.ncs.gov/ for details. DoD is one
of those 22, as is NASA. 

NCS was given this task as a result of a recommendation to the President
from telecommunications industry through the National Security
Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC), which is includes many
prominent telecommunication service providers - visit
http://www.ncs.gov/NSTAC/nstac.htm for more details. I was assigned this
task to work with industry worldwide and other nations to establish a list
of requirements and seek establishment of industry standards to fulfill the
requirements. I have been working the project for over three years now. The
IETF is only one of the organizations that I am working with. I have been
collaborating and working with many governments and telecommunications
industry representatives worldwide in addressing the many issues associated
with provision of communication capabilities for emergency and disaster
relief in FUTURE networks.

The "requirements" that are presented in the ID are really better
characterized as "objectives" to be considered. Some may already be
accommodated with existing provisions. Others may be fulfilled with new work
or additions. And some may not ever be possible. The ID is intended to be a
basic "wish list" without bias as to how they might be fulfilled. The
"requirements" presented have evolved from considerable research,
collaboration, and input from prominent telecommunications industry
organizations, disaster relief organizations, and governments around the
world.

Unfortunately, many other countries do not consider IETF an international
activity. I have argued against this view and aggressively defended the IETF
on this issue. I have encountered little interest elsewhere in recognition
of the important role of the IETF for addressing the technical issues of the
Internet. This is most likely the reason that there has been little input
from other areas of the world.

I hope that we can get on with this work in a constructive context and reach
agreement of meaningful and effective solutions using Internet technology
that will enable provision of public telecommunication capabilities in
FUTURE networks for emergency and disaster relief operations for saving
lives and restoring the community living conditions.

Hal

---

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:16:31 -0500

Hal,

> lives and restoring the community living conditions.

You made a point of twice stating "FUTURE networks".  It might be worth
elaborating what you mean by this.

Scott has mentioned as related aspect of context previously:
"should this WG be talking about what the Internet can be expected
   to be able to do now or in the immediate future (see 1st deliverable
   in the WG charter) of speculate on what might be possible at some
   point in the future?

(my feeling, if its not clear, is that we should stick to the world
of today and the near future)"

Kimberly