**Session Date/Time:** 22 Jul 2026 16:30

[00:00:46] **Roman Danyliw**: Good evening, everyone. We are gonna get started. So as you're coming in, please find a seat. Well, good evening everyone and welcome to the IETF 120 plenary meeting here in Vienna. My name is Roman Danyliw and I am chair of the IETF and I'm gonna facilitate us through the evening. For those of you that are joining us online, welcome as well. As I look out to the crowd, I think just how different it really is. I think looking out there are more people sitting here in this plenary room which is a fraction of actual participants. And I think this is more than the number of people we had total across the entire meeting when we were here in Vienna several years ago coming out of the pandemic. So it's really kinda wonderful to see us back to this fabulous city and kinda see us back and forth working on the latest in Internet standardization and in research supporting those activities. So this is, of course, an IETF meeting. And with every IETF meeting, what's applicable are the various policies and procedures to our organization, which are enumerated in the note well. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with that by clicking on the link associated with that QR code and reviewing those policies if you were not already familiar with them. We have our usual standing agenda. We will have a welcome from our host followed by reports from our different leadership bodies, followed by the IRTF, the nomination committee, the intellectual property management corporation, then the administration LLC. And then you'll have an opportunity as the community to ask questions of the different leadership bodies. And this year, the this meeting, the order is the IAB followed by the ISG followed by the IETF LLC board. This meeting, I hope you've been finding it as successful and as productive as I have, is only due to the hard work of lots of different people and lots of different organizations supporting the IETF. The first I wanted to recognize are the the professional staff that makes this meeting possible. That's the secretariat, the me echo, the NOC, the RPC, Ayanna, and the LLC staff. But I also wanna recognize the volunteers that run the programs inside the meeting. That's those helping with the guides and the new participant program and, of course, the ombuds that's ever present in our meetings and also is virtual. So let's please give them a round of applause for making this meeting happen for us. The other big thank you I wanna have is to our meeting host, and I would invite to to the stage Fluffy Jennings, the Cisco fellow and CTO, for a few words as our meeting host from Cisco.

[00:03:59] **Cullen 'Fluffy' Jennings**: Thank

[00:04:02] **Cullen 'Fluffy' Jennings**: you. It's a great night here. I've got my popcorn. I'm at the plenary. It just doesn't really get much better than that. It'll be an excellent plenary. I'm looking forward to it. So what I really wanted to say is thank you to everyone for coming. I know that it's a huge time commitment for us to all travel and come here. I know there's this incredible amount of volunteer work that has been done by everyone to to make this happen, everyone for the people who set it up, to all of our chairs, document authors, ISG, IAB, the whole group. So thank you for this. It's really important what we do here. Cisco finds it very important to us. That's why we continue to always sponsor it, But it's really important to the world, and I think that sometimes we don't step away and think about the overall impact that the Internet's having across it and how much we drive that, we being the people in this community in this room. So I thank you for coming. I thank you for engaging with everyone and having great times, throwing a little popcorn maybe, and have a great night.

[00:05:01] **Roman Danyliw**: On behalf of the ITF community, we are grateful for Cisco's support, so I'd like to present this plaque to you on behalf of the community, to you and the company.

[00:05:09] **Cullen 'Fluffy' Jennings**: Thank you.

[00:05:13] **Roman Danyliw**: All right. Very good. Thank you. I

[00:05:19] **Roman Danyliw**: have a habit of if you've seen me not knowing whether to mail it or not, And there's sometimes a tug of war associated with that. All right, so next up in the agenda, I wanted to go through the chair report and the ISG report. There's a few details that I'm gonna surface that I'd like to make sure that everyone sees here tonight. This is, of course, only a subset of what has actually been summarized and reported. For additional details about everything I'm gonna talk about and more different more kind of topics, especially kind of trends that we typically report there are not here, please do check the standing report and the link there. And it will also be linked in the proceedings. It has significantly more information posted in advance of this meeting. So you probably heard me when I opened with a little bit of excitement. This is a huge meeting. The turnout is about 1,900 people, which I had Cindy from the secretariat look up what that means in terms of the historical baseline. So the last time we had a meeting that had 1,900 people, it was San Diego December 2000. So quite a long time ago. Maybe I should ask, who was in San Diego at that time? Nice. Yeah, my first IETF meeting was the one in Pittsburgh right after that. So exciting. So by all the numbers, huge turnout here. It's, like I said, amazing to kind of see you, given last time we were in Vienna. Equally, is a tremendously large hackathon by participant count. I think if you think about seven fifty registration for hackathon, we've had much smaller meetings than just the hackathon participation alone. So it's wonderful getting that running code and a huge number of projects also coming in. And we're seeing consistent trend lines that if you look around to your right and left, there's a cluster of five of you. Statistically, one of you has never been to the ITF meeting before. This is roughly what we always see. For those of you that this is your first meeting, kind of welcome to the ITF. We can't wait to see you at the next meeting as well, and hope to see you in some working group. I've already kind of said the last time we were even this close was almost twenty six years ago. So we have blown by the high watermarks that we typically track in recent memory, where it's incremental growth. So huge turnout here, very, very exciting. And to report on the trends of where everyone's coming from, we're seeing broad kind of participation from lots places in the world. One thing I wanted to dive into this time, because we have a unique opportunity that the administration, the ITFL Administrative LLC, just published the community survey that I hope many of you responded to that gives us the broader contextualization of who is the community. And Jay is gonna talk in his report a little bit more about that. But two things I wanted to highlight is, while we have a huge turnout here today, that is but a fraction of the overall IETF community. We reach with our mailing list and the engagements we have beyond the meetings and the engagement we have in the interim meetings. We're pushing about 50,000 unique identities. We measure them by email addresses, so there's probably a little bit of duplication. But we're talking about tens of thousands of people that make the standards and the research possible in the IETF and in the IRTF. And the other observation that we have from that community survey is that about half of them continue to participate in that way through our interim meetings and through the mailing list and do not come to the plenary meeting as kind of reported. And they've never shown up at any plenary meeting at all, and they're still participating, which is phenomenal. The other trend that we see kind of repeated that I want to highlight, I talked about raw size. I talked about where they're coming from. Let's talk about the stakeholder community. Because the charm of the IETF is that we convene a multi stakeholder forum. And if our community survey really repeats what we've observed for over many years, that we're about half of that participation is industry, about a fifth of that is academia, and then government and civil society is about 10%, respectively. If you're wondering what that gray means, what does others kind of stand for? Well, what are these other stakeholder communities? Other means there's a very, very small fraction of individuals that said, I've retired, and so I don't consider myself having a stakeholder community. There was also a large number of individuals that said, prefer not to stay. So that's the 7% outlier there. So moving into IESG business. There has not been any new statements issued since we last convened at IETF one hundred twenty five. There's been a number of announcements. I'm going to talk about the specifics of each one of them, so I won't dive into it. But the one I did wanna showcase is the tagline you see at the bottom. The NOMCOM is gonna be speaking to you, I think, in two talks to pick the future leadership. So we're gonna have a q and a with leadership across the table. And very shortly in the fall, we will be starting the process to replace many of those faces that you'll be seeing sitting at these tables. And your input for that is crucial. If you are interested in potentially serving in one of those positions, being an area director, the ISG will be having a colloquially ask me anything. Ask the ISG anything. Come get that personal perspective. Have one on one conversations about what that job is like, and see whether that's a good fit. And maybe that will convince you to stand. So join us tomorrow for that. To report out on appeals, since the last time we got together, there were six new appeals filed, five related to activities in the TLS working group, and one filed around an activity coming out of the IRTF. I have this podium to talk about many things, but I also run the general area. And I always like to showcase what's happening there, primarily because that affects each and every one of you. It's a cross cutting across all working groups. So I would always invite you, if you are wondering how the processes related to assigning code points or you have ideas about how those processes should change, please come to the IANA BISS working group, which is the first one listed there. And if you have interest in evolving the processes related to the internet standards process, that is what the ProCon working group is meeting is doing. ProCon is meeting tomorrow. You missed IANA BISS, but you can catch up that way. That convened earlier this week. And to tease something that's going to be coming, the outward facing processes by which the IETF interacts with liaisons to other standards development organizations, which is crucial to building things like digital public infrastructure or large scale deployment on the Internet. We have processes, of course, that are RFCs that guide that. They have recently been revised by the IAB, and they are now coming into the IETF stream for approval. So I'll be coming to you into the community for that feedback to see whether we have consensus to publish those. So the big thing I want to announce that's happened since IETF one hundred twenty five is that RFC 9,945 got published. That has defined the new moderation process for the community. We are now in the process of implementing that guidance. The first of those things to implement is defining and appointing a moderation team. And the ISG has found these four extremely capable kind of individuals. We have Chris, Martin, Bronn, Susan, Murray, and Mohit, who have graciously volunteered to be the first moderation team. And they will be the ones responsible for defining the procedures by which RFC 9,945 will be implemented. And ultimately, this will go to community feedback and have to be approved by the IHT before being in operation. So I'd really like to take a moment to recognize the tremendous request and load we have put on this crucial role in the team. So really thank you for volunteering to that team, and I'd like to kind of recognize them. And one other adjacent announcement adjacent announcement I'd like to make is that implementing that moderation process tasked the IESG to define a forum where moderation should occur for the community. And that has been designated as the former mailing list of the ModPod working group, the ModDiscuss. So that is the place where we should bring community conversations associated with that. And as the moderators begin their deliberation with their processes, I'm sure there will be more communication community on those matters. And another team that had a recent change in personnel that I'd like to highlight is the crucial ombuds team. So the ombuds team focuses on ensuring the consistent application of the IETF anti harassment policy. They are a resource to us here in the community to handle situations where you may have observed harassment in the organization or you yourself feel like you have been harassed. And they are a resource that you can come to to work through those claims and ensure that does not happen inside the community. I'd like to recognize an outgoing member of the ombuds team. Sofia Selle served three years as an ombuds on the ombuds kind

[00:14:47] **Dhruv Dhody**: of team.

[00:14:48] **Roman Danyliw**: And equally, I'd like to recognize that Padma is the incoming member of the ombuds team she has just agreed to join. I would like to really recognize them as well, Sofia, for her service and Padma for her willingness to serve in the community for us. And last, the ombuds team asked me to add the bottom information. They are a resource to you, whether you need them for things that are happening remotely or whether things are happening here on-site. So if you'd like to reach the ombuds team, you can always get them through that email alias that you see there. If you wanna reach out to someone remotely, Avri and Siobhan are standing by remotely. We also have part of the ombuds team here on-site. So you can either find Padma or David if you'd like to instead talk to someone in person. That alias gets the ombuds team, whether they're remote or in person. But if you want to track a human down here at the venue, they are circulating around with a little tag on their badge. And the last thank you I would have before I turn it over to the next speaker is to really recognize the hard work of your ADs that are working the standards process on your behalf, whether moving documents through your working groups or helping you spin up new working groups. And that's frankly only possible through the generous support of largely their employers. Not everyone is employer kind of sponsored, but those are represented here. And so I wanted to take a moment to signal appreciation for those organizations supporting them. So one more time. So with that, I'd like to turn over the stage to my colleague, Dhruv, who's going to come up to talk about the IUB.

[00:16:38] **Dhruv Dhody**: Hello, everyone. I'm Dhruv. I'm the IUB chair. So we also have a much more detailed report that you can find on our proceedings on both IAB dot org as well as on the IETF 120 proceedings. We also had a session called IAB Open, which happened yesterday. If you are interested in IAB activities, look at the recordings for that and the proceedings. You'll find a lot more details than what I'll cover in my short report right now. So one of the activities that IIB does is organize workshops. And our final step in the workshop is we publish reports. So we have published our reports for three of those. And the final workshop that we did last December, even that we have shipped from IAB's side, and it will be published soon. IAB is also responsible for the liaisons. We recently established a new liaison relationship with Optical Internetworking Forum, OIF, and we wanted to highlight that. And as Roman was mentioning about some of the updates in the document, yes, those are things which are still currently in the IAB stream. And we will be passing it on to Roman pretty soon. IAB is also responsible in tracking and coordinating outreach activities with the ISG, and we undertook some of these activities since the IETF 119, of which I wanted to highlight a few. We went to operator communities like RIPE, LACNIC, as well as Nanog. And we have plans to go to APNIC as well in the coming months. We also participated in some other events, some IAB members and leadership, like RSA Conference, where we talked about some of the working group's work output, as well as a pre ITF event in India called Connections. And finally, we are also responsible for appeals. Since IETF 119, we received three, and we responded to all three of them. And with that, let me pass it on to Duck. Yes.

[00:18:49] **Colin Perkins**: Hello. I'm Colin Perkins. I'm the chair of the Internet Research Task Force,

[00:18:53] **Jay Daley**: and let me let me give you

[00:18:54] **Colin Perkins**: a quick update what's going on in the IRTF. So the IRTF has 16 active research groups, and 14 of those have been meeting or are still meeting this week. I promoted the Sustain and the Space Physics Proposed Research Group from a proposed group to a regular group this week. We have two platforms for raising the profile of the IRTF and the academic research community. So this is to bring in new people from the research community to to the IRTF, get new ideas, and so on. So that's our workshop, ANRP, and our research prize, ANRP. And so the applied networking research workshop, ANRP, took place at this IETF on Monday. So we're doing this in cooperation with ACM supported by by Akamai. The chairs this time were Thomas Schmidt and Suresh Krishnan. And you can find all the papers and presentations on the IITF website. The Applied Networking Research Prize is to recognize recent and relevant academic publications that are relevant to, you know, the the evolution of the Internet. And so we are kind of having, like, a call for contributions. We select the best papers, and then we invite those people here. So this is supported by by ISOC, Comcast, and NBCUniversal. And so this week, we will have two of these prize winners here that will be presenting in IRTF Open tomorrow at at fourteen PM. And so that's with Ramayza Habib for her work on formalizing dependence on web infrastructure and for his work on fingerprinting deep packet inspection of devices. So that's gonna be tomorrow at 2PM. We are also offering diversity travel grants to bring in people who from different backgrounds who could find it difficult to attend our meetings. So at this meeting, we we had the pleasure to host four TerraGant winners again from different regions and and different backgrounds. We have already made the selection for IETF 121, and we will open the call for IETF 122 later in November. So if you're interested in that, please keep your eyes open. And, yeah, I'm happy to say that the IRTF is recently doing quite a few interesting outreach activities. So we are going to other communities. So for example, the Sustain Research Group held a meeting last week in Passau in Germany that brought together Internet researchers and people who are working on electrical grids. So figuring out so how can both communities learn from each other and also what are interesting research challenges for us, but also for them. And in December this year, we we I'm holding another workshop on Internet working for AI at ACM CoNEXT. That's it for me. Thank you very much, and I hand over to Benno and Anna Kamana. I'll kick off.

[00:22:45] **Benno Overeinder**: Yeah. Yeah. You don't expect to see me here this time. Here I am. So, I'm the NomCom chair of last year. And as it happens, there was, a vacant position at the ITF LLC port, and that's still the duty of the NOMCOMM of the previous year. So here I am, and brief reports on where we are right now. So, there we are. Introduce myself here. So, there was an ITF LLC board position vacant, and that makes that we have six weeks to announce nomination. We have, of course, the interviews, we have the deliberations, the confirmation, and then the install of the new board member. And, six weeks is not long, so that was, time goes fast. Where are we now? First, I want to thank the flexibility and instant availability of my old NOMCOM. There was some muscle memory, so things went fairly well and smooth. Thank you all my NomCom members. But again, where are we now? What's the status? So we did we had community feedback up to Tuesday. We had interviews this week with two nominees. This morning, we had our deliberations and came to selection. We sent a letter to the ISG with our selected candidates, and that's where we are now. So we sent this letter to the ISG, the confirming body, and, the approval. The confirmation will arrive soon. That's it. So stay tuned, and we will soon hear more about the next ITF LLC board member. I might say I have to mention, this is a situation that the the the vacancy is less than eight months, less than a year, I have to say. So what happens is that the old noncom appoints or selects a candidate for the midterm, which is less than one year. And according to RFC 8713, it's also a selection for the next three years for that position. Okay. Any questions, comments, maybe later. I want to hand it over to Mankamna. Thank you.

[00:25:17] **Mankamna Mishra**: Good evening. So when Roman started meeting with such a high energy, I can't go. I can't match his energy, but I'll go slow. So I'm Mankham Nawishra, and I'm NomCom chair for 2024-2025. And what exactly NomCom is responsible for is to select candidate out of nominees for leadership position. And we have to go through all the process of getting a nomination and getting the feedback, having interviews in the next IETF. So right now, we have a total position open. Thank you, Benno, taking care of the top positions, I have one less thing to care of. So we have one position for IT of trust, and then IAB has six positions, and IESG has seven positions. One for application and real time, one for Internet ops is one, and routing ID, two security ID, one position, web and Internet, one position. So we have already finished having the voting members. So we have done the 10 voting members before this IETF. And we have non voting members where I am the chair and the past chair, Benno. Then we have some liaisons from IAB, ISG, ISOC. And there are two of them missing, which we expect to finish soon. With respect to timeline, so NamCom has already seated this IETF. We had our kickoff meeting on Tuesday. And from now to IETF 121, we will start nomination from August 1, and it will be going on till the October 14. Looking at the next IETF, some of the people may not travel, so we will start virtual interview pretty early, which is around the October 20. And we will have in person interview during next IETF. Definitely, would request everyone who is nominating themselves, if possible, please travel. It's always good to meet in person. And IETF 121, we are going to have deliberations, and we will have all the position filled by IETF 122. Based on the experience of last IETF, last time, the Friday in the Montreal, we were able to, I would say, finish almost 80 to 85 of the work. So we are hoping that same thing will continue in the next IETF as well. And the detailed timeline is already we have put in the data tracker wiki. Thank you.

[00:28:08] **Wendy Seltzer**: Good evening. I don't see nearly enough popcorn in the room. Wendy Seltzer. I am here as president of the IETF intellectual property management corporation and chair of the IETF trust. I am helped by this tremendous board of the IPR, Victor and John. We're recently joined by Lars and Sean. And as it's my first time up here, I have to say thank you very much to Glenn Dean and Kristian Ørmen for their service previously on the IPR board. IPR manages the intellectual property, the the copyrights and trademarks for IATF, and also the IANA intellectual property. And our primary duty is to safeguard that for the relevant stakeholder communities. And so we report to the community on licensing inquiries and legal actions. I'm very pleased to report we have not had any legal actions or inquiries that required detailed response. And we are still in the process of the transition from IETF trust to the IP Management Corporation. And we have transferred all of the IETF related assets at the previous meeting, including future acquired assets. So don't worry if you're still trans making agreements that transfer your intellectual property to the IETF trust. It is going to its proper home with the IPNC. The IANA IPR will be transferred after we complete final signatures on novation agreements to make sure that all of that is recognized by all of the parties who have interest in that IP. We are circulating a new Trust Legal Provisions. That was the trust licensing provisions. It's now the technical licensing provisions. If you are interested in the the wording of that, please look at t l p interest at iatf.org. And if you have comments on that, please share those. We are also planning a BCP update and have a draft linked from the slides. We have, as was mentioned, one seat for appointment by the NOMCOM. And if you're interested in that, the the job description will be very similar to those previously. And if you have questions about that, feel free to come to our office hours tomorrow or to reach out to us through our websites and email as below. Thank you all for helping to keep our intellectual property in good hands and for continuing to produce valuable work that we can help to safeguard.

[00:32:01] **Jay Daley**: Hello, everyone. So welcome to IETF 120 Vienna from the IETF LLC. I hope you're enjoying this venue. It's a smaller venue than most, but I think many of us are finding that's lovely because we don't have to walk along huge corridors to find people and certainly getting to meet people a lot better. So talking first about IETF 120 Vienna. Roman and I will, at some point, finally, get together about these things. But for now, if I could ask you please put your hands together to thank Cisco for being our global host. And, also, if we could thank our gold sponsors for diversity inclusion, we have Akamai and Huawei. And then our many other sponsors, we have, Comcast and ICANN, DENIC and Nominet, and ZTE. And then, connectivity sponsor and local supporter is NextLayer. Thank you all very much. So these are the people who actually run the meeting. If you have any thought that I didn't know, these are the people who did all. So the secretariat, thank you all very much. And these are all the supporting technical teams, both the staff and the contractors and the volunteers, and we've particularly called out the companies that those volunteers are from who support them coming here. Thank you. And then the final clapping side. Thank you all very much to our global hosts. It is with their ongoing support, that it that we're able to afford these meetings and have such delight as popcorn. Thank you so much. So some new things to this meeting. First of all, what you may have noticed, the secretary are no longer wearing uniforms. And instead, we have now the staff blue badges around so that you can recognize and identify people a little bit better. We have a new emergency plan in place as well, which is for a range of emergency situations, and everybody have been trained on it. And strange enough, we had to use it on Friday when we had a very large thief stealing NOC and secretariat consumables. Stealing something off the NOC is really a silly idea. So that was didn't last too long. There we go. And they were by the way, they were hotel guests, and they had to be removed and everything. So that was a good job we had the plan in place for that one. So once again, just to remind you, we have a a store, and t shirts and other things are available on the store for you to buy if you've missed a chance this time or need exercises or anything like that. So a little bit now about IETF LLC operations just to update you on. So we've had some staffing changes and things with the secretariat being insourced, And the secretariat has now been restructured slightly into two specialist teams, the meetings team and the leadership support team. And so when you put the organization together, this is the rough structure now of the organization. We have a new data analyst as well working on multiple projects in our community survey that just came out recently. And we're now getting much more strategic with annual planning sessions for each team with a follow-up community report, a blog post generally for you to understand some more detail about what's going on with all of those teams and their plans. We've got some upcoming consultations. We're gonna be doing one or two actually about backlogs and SLAs. So both the RPC and tools teams have significant backlogs of community work to process. So we're gonna do community consultations on your expectations of service. What's done? What performance is expected? And if we find there's a mismatch between community expectations and the resources we have, then that may lead to conversations about that. We're also going to have a consultation on the remote rooms experiment. So some of you remember that we did an experiment in IETF 119 Brisbane about remote rooms. Now no remote rooms were requested for this meeting, but we are gonna do a consultation on the whole concept before IETF 121 New Orleans because we suspect that if it is then available, then some people will be interested in that. And we're also going to be putting out some venue assessment reports and consultations on new venues, new cities that have been assessed as suitable for an IETF meeting coming up. Overall, on that venue side of things, we'll be working much more on transparency and engagement with the community about how we choose venues and things going forwards. So this is the the key findings from the IETF community survey that Roman mentioned earlier. The first one is a really very, very strong one that so first of all, Roman mentioned, we have we have roughly 52,000 email addresses subscribed to IETF mailing lists. We send this survey to every one of those addresses except maybe well, several 100 that have opted out of it from previous surveys. We had 1,480 valid responses after we do our data cleaning and stuff afterwards. And one of the first things we do is we ask people to self classify how often they engage with the mailing list, and that gives us a measure of how how much of a participant or how regular a participant they are. So the IETF continues to deliver on its core mission with perceived importance at an all time high. So, you know, when we ask people how well do you think the IETF does, is it doing what it says it does, very, very good results all around there. Then we have one of the the bigger concerns, which is about the timeliness and process right the way through. So that's, you know, the the decision making within working groups, that is the publication side, it's all of these things. And it's a, you know, a persistent unresolved concern there. We are making meaningful signs of progress on gender diversity. And this is particularly because of the new intake, the younger people that are coming in. We are have a much more diverse set of people coming in than the long term participants. We understand that process complexity and reading volume are a hindrance for new participants. That's been well understood. And we have the whole day Sunday training program, and we're looking at more initiatives as well to help people come in and become a productive member of the ITF as soon as possible. Then we have the the number six one. We still have people feeling that the balancing this corporate extensive representation with the core principle of individual contribution is a challenge. And there is there's it's a gray area for many people about how that sits. And then finally, we, for the very first time, had an open ended question. What else do you think on the end of the survey? We tried to avoid it before because I didn't wanna read 1,480 responses. And then along came Claude, so we got, you know, Claude to read 1,480 responses for us. We only actually had 240 responses, so it's much easier than expected. And amongst then within that, within a smaller group within that of regular participants, we had some governance and inclusion concerns surfaced. So it's a very detailed report. It's very well worth reading. It's very useful. And if you have further questions from it, please let us know because we're always happy to try to dig into the data more. And we also can make that data available to researchers if we, you know, can do a a proper research agreement around it. So we have that there as well. Right. So a little bit about future meetings now. Next, of course, we have IETF 121 New Orleans. Registration is open. Please register now. Please book your flights. Please let's see you in person. That would be lovely. Then if you haven't seen it, we have now announced IETF 122 next March will be in Kuala Lumpur. It will be in the Bangkok. Thank you. One person said to me, yay, proper Asia for that one, which is great. So very pleased with that one. Right. These are then the future meeting locations and venues. So the next four are all booked. We have San Francisco, then we have Kuala Lumpur, then we have Berlin, and then after that, Vancouver. And we're now starting to work on the next set going forward. It did take a long time to book Kuala Lumpur. I'm sorry about that. It was, you know, quite late. Dealing with convention centers is always very difficult. It it takes several well, it takes a very long time of backwards and forwards around contracts and liability and things. Every convention center we've ever come across wants us to take liability for absolutely everything and pay them extraordinary amounts in advance in these things, and it's always a painful process to go through. I I'm not quite sure how other people work with convention centers, but that's the way forward. So that's it. If you have any, you know, thoughts or views about locations, venues, this venue, how it's working for you, please let us know. I mean, we will have the survey at the end of the meeting. As many of you as possible, please fill that out. That'd be great. But we're particularly interested about the size of venue. This is a smaller venue. We were worried about the capacity. The the capacity is thirteen fifty, and we have got twelve fifty roughly registered, maybe 1,100 on-site at any one time. But it for many people, the feedback I've heard from most people is that this is working much better than a larger venue, and maybe we ought to try more regularly to find smaller venues and do this. That's just the things straightforward. So thank you very much for your time, everyone. Over to Miriam.

[00:42:47] **Mirja Kühlewind**: There you go. Yes, my name is Miriam Kühlewind. I'm the chair of the LLC board. We have one other board member here. It's Roman. Unfortunately, George and Gonzalo Camarillo couldn't be here this time. And as you heard from Benno, we have one vacant position. And, yeah, you heard the update of that. Luckily, Roman has agreed to take over the treasurer role since our treasurer resigned, so we're happy with that. And, I would really like to thank Shwetha Bhandari, also here for her for the work that she's put into on the board since she started. As usual, just an overview here of our financial situation. This is an update from April. Know, we're always a little bit behind, but this is how the statements work. Know, what you can see, the monthly financial statements on the web site. So, the main statements are already up there and the board will be approving the next ones coming up. I'm not going to go through the details here. Also, on the next slide, you'll see some notes, some annotations there for the numbers if you want to go through them. Please feel free if you have any questions. Know, we are here, Jay and also the financial officers here. Then, I would like to give you a quick update of what the board is working on and busy with in addition to all the operational work that Jay has described. We had a retreat, a board retreat that we usually have once a year. This one was in Amsterdam in April. And we've done a lot of work there and I published a blog post about this after the retreat. And we're kind of busy following up on all the action items and all the decisions and all the future activities we want to work on. We already have agreed on a new or have reviewed our risk register and accompanying policy that describes the risk register and that's already updated on the website. We're also updating our investment policy, which is kind of a healthy thing to do every so often, so we're working on that. And also, our multi year strategy is up for review, so we're working on that at the moment. Jay has already mentioned the remote room, so we've been talking about this also on the board. And we carefully read the review and the report of the last one. So, we're looking forward to the consultation there and how you would like to go forward with that. And, I started and I heard kind of, you know, people want to find out a bit more of what the LLC is doing and also what's happening on the board, what the board members are thinking about, you know, what decisions you made. And so, we started publishing a report just before this meeting. I sent out the first one. And I would like to continue to do this, you know, maybe on a you know, roughly on a monthly basis, see it sometimes maybe in the summer it won't work. But I'd be curious also to hear if that's something you find useful and to kind of pulling together also the other reports, you know, that Jay and the other teams are sending out, like the RPC and the tools team and some other activities that are going on within the LLC, but maybe they're not all published in the same place. And so, I thought it might be useful to do that and send that out. A bit similar to maybe the IAB and the RSG report, so we want to do that also for the LLC. And we had Rosoti on the slide, but we had also now this meeting again some office hours yesterday, Monday and Tuesday. Roman and I were there just to see if there's any feedback, any questions you might have for for the board. We might repeat this, you know, from time to time, see if there's some interest in any topics you wanna bring up on a rhythm with more time, you know, rather than here in the plenary. And that's pretty much all I had to say. Just here are, as usual, the times of our board meetings. There are also parts of it that are public open to the public, so we usually have a number of observers there. You know, the dates, we're going to skip the one in August, but then you're back in September and October, and you'll always find the minutes of the meetings and also on the website. And so you're welcome to join as observer. And then, on the last slide, just a bunch of links on how you can contact us and reach us in different teams on the board only, board with Jay, and also the links to all the information that I mentioned, all the policies, financial statements, minutes, and so forth. And that's it from me. Thank you.

[00:47:42] **Roman Danyliw**: Next up, we're going to start the community collecting any of the community feedback with the open mics from the leadership bodies. So first up, we are going to have the IAB. So if you're on the IAB, please come to the stage.

[00:47:56] **Dhruv Dhody**: Thank you.

[00:48:25] **Mirja Kühlewind**: IAP.

[00:48:27] **Colin Perkins**: Colin Perkins, IAB. Yaroslav Rosomakho, IAB.

[00:48:33] **Roman Danyliw**: Roman Danyliw, IAB.

[00:48:36] **Colin Perkins**: Matthew Bocci, IAB. Dhruv Dhody, IAB.

[00:48:41] **Dhruv Dhody**: Dhruv Dhody, IAB chair.

[00:48:43] **Tim Chown**: Alvaro Retana, IAB. Warren Kumari, IAB.

[00:48:49] **Andrew Campling**: Jason Livinggood, IAB. Ali Rezaki, IAB.

[00:48:54] **Benno Overeinder**: Nick Sullivan, IAB.

[00:48:56] **Andrew Campling**: Jenna Iyengar, IAB.

[00:49:00] **Dhruv Dhody**: And the mic lines are open. Okay. We have one.

[00:49:12] **Eliot Lear**: Good evening. This is Elliot. I can't let you guys get away without at least one comment at the mic. I am the independent submissions editor, and I just wanna bring to the community's attention that I will generally keep drafts up to date in the tracker if people wanna follow what's going on with independent submissions. One of us there's a group of independent submissions. They're now being sent off to the IESG for fifty seven forty two review. These are the CNSA two crypto profile documents. You can find them in the tracker by searching on c s CNSA two. I solicit comments on these and any other drafts, and I it's not too late to comment on these. I'm always looking for reviews, and please feel free to send me any comments or questions that you might have. Thank you.

[00:50:10] **Dhruv Dhody**: Thank you, Elliot. Thanks for your service. Any other questions for the IAB? Going once, going twice. Yay.

[00:50:35] **Roman Danyliw**: Next up, I next up, I invite the ISG. I think that one's mine. No. No. You're good.

[00:51:22] **Cullen 'Fluffy' Jennings**: You're good.

[00:51:30] **Roman Danyliw**: Well, I don't know if I'm supposed to sit or not. That's what's happening. Gory, why don't you get us started with introductions?

[00:51:37] **Jay Daley**: Gorry Fairhurst, WIT AD.

[00:51:40] **Roman Danyliw**: Christian Amsüss, security AD.

[00:51:43] **Charles Eckel**: Charles Eckle, ART AD. Éric Vyncke,

[00:51:47] **Mahesh Jethanandani**: NTT. Mahesh Jethanandani, ObsEdi.

[00:51:53] **Roman Danyliw**: Roman Danyliw, General Area, chair.

[00:51:56] **Dhruv Dhody**: Dhruv Dhody, IB Chair.

[00:51:58] **Cullen 'Fluffy' Jennings**: Routing AD.

[00:52:01] **Ketan Talaulikar**: Ketan Talaulikar, Routing AD.

[00:52:04] **Benno Overeinder**: Boucadair, Jim Guichard, Routing AD.

[00:52:09] **Deb Cooley**: Deb Cooley, Security AD. Isn't that robbing?

[00:52:15] **Tommy Pauly**: Tommy Pauly, Int AD.

[00:52:18] **Charles Eckel**: Mike Bishop, ART AD.

[00:52:21] **Roman Danyliw**: Andy Newton, ART AD. Okay. The mic line is open. I see some queued up. So, Wes, I see you as first.

[00:52:30] **Wes Hardaker**: Thank you. Tom Wes Hardaker. I've been coming here for a while to these IETF things. And one thing I've noticed that there's rather large waves of pleasant times and times with a little bit of discontent where we I don't know if you've noticed. We don't always get along. There are times we're in disagreement with each other. There are times where we're in disagreement with the chairs. There's times that we disagree with the ADs. And so I come here with a simple message. So first off, I hate all of your discusses. But the reality is is that we all come here to make the Internet a better place. And what we often forget is that we each have a different vision of what better looks like. And so we have different opinions. We have different priorities, and we get in fights. But we're all here to make the Internet better, more resilient, more secure, more robust, use all the fancy buzzwords that you want to use. We all have that goal. And so my message tonight is simple, that when we get in large disagreements and when we start fighting with each other and when we start picking on people in unfair ways, it's not fair. So I want to say thank you. Thank you for your service. Thanks for putting up with us. Thanks for the time and devotion that you have. Thanks for making the Internet better. And thank you even for the discusses you put on my document because I know you are trying to make the Internet a better place. And I I would say I'm sorry, but I hopefully I don't have to. Other people should. So thank you for all of the people that don't say that they're they're sorry. Thank you.

[00:54:21] **Charles Eckel**: I will say I don't think any of us enjoy putting discusses on documents. Okay. Some past IETF chairs may. But

[00:54:38] **Roman Danyliw**: Next up, Martin.

[00:54:39] **Martin Thomson**: Yeah. Thank you. I have three questions. I don't know how you wanna receive these things, but, really, this is a request for you. The first one relates to the matter that's been happening in TLS. I think there's been some truly disgraceful behavior involved in that process, and the chairs have done, I think, the best they can with a terrible situation.

[00:55:01] **Roman Danyliw**: I

[00:55:01] **Martin Thomson**: thank the chairs for that work, but, I think two things, are true at the other end of this. I personally like the outcome that the chairs have ruled, but I also don't think that this is consensus. And I realized that we don't have a process for dealing with situations like this very well, and I think it is the responsibility responsibility of the ISG to deal with the situation and give our working group chairs better tools to deal with these terrible situations where we have this sort of essentially a denial of service attack on the organization. So that's one. The second one is the flood of I'm gonna be frank about this AI slop that we're seeing in particularly dispatch and and a large number of working groups. This institution has, for for a very long time, relied on certain defensive measures to protect itself from having to deal with work that consumes time and is ultimately not productive. I would like to ask the ISG to do something more substantive about that because those defenses that we had are no longer adequate to the task. And the third one is a bit of a criticism. Somewhat related to that last one, I I see we have, I think, approximately four AI related buffs this week, three of which have already run, I think, somewhat unsuccessfully. I feel that the ISG scheduled those buffs far too early. The work was not mature enough. And I would like to see a little higher bar, used to filter work like that so that we don't spend enormous amounts of the community's time on work that is ultimately ill formed and and not quite ready for the community at large.

[00:56:56] **Roman Danyliw**: Thank you. Thanks for those three comments. I'm gonna start, kind of responding to the three backwards. So on the observation on the IETF on the AI related buffs that kind of happened, the the ISG with help of the IAB certainly deliberated on on those topics. And we can never predict what the future outcome is of those bots. But in each of those cases, we felt that there was at least sufficient community conversation to to take it out of the forums in which it was happening inside meetings and other places and give it a structured place to discuss with the entire community where we can get the consensus feedback whether the these kinds of conversations can can continue. Anyone else wanna add on number three? Okay. Okay. Working Wait.

[00:57:45] **Charles Eckel**: Can I throw one thing in? And think Tommy wanted to as well. I will also note that a successful BoF is not necessarily one that decides to form a working group and do work. A successful BOF, it is still a successful outcome to decide we have more questions that we need to answer before we move forward. That's not necessarily a failure.

[00:58:12] **Tommy Pauly**: And on that note, this was definitely these

[00:58:17] **Roman Danyliw**: were

[00:58:17] **Tommy Pauly**: not easy decisions, and it was something we were attempting to balance in terms of if we what will happen if we give a better venue for discussion because there was a lot of criticism and a ton of side meetings going on that indicated there was something that needed to be broken out. And if the outcome is that it all comes out and it turns out no actionable work is there, well, now we know. Yeah.

[00:58:46] **Roman Danyliw**: Okay. Then addressing the middle one, which, of course, is the easiest of them all is AI and kind of the slop coming. Listen. I got we gotta acknowledge kind of outright that AI is already changing how we do the standards process, and it's gonna change it in ways we can't we we can't even imagine. It's gonna change how the drafts are written, how the drafts are reviewed. It's changing already how the drafts are. I shouldn't say future tense. It's happening now, and it's gonna happen in the future. It changes the whole dynamic on running code when I can mint a lot of code real quick. It'll change how we interact and is changing how we're interacting on mailing lists and just how the meetings run. And then lastly, it also is impacting the consensus kind of process. The ISG is hearing from at the participant level, at the directorate review level, and from working group chairs that what we have is inadequate, and we need to sort some of these things out. Equally, as we the the most recent version was the working group chairs lunch. We heard we heard kind of practical, I loot to say best common practices, but practices around how we can exploit AI in a positive way to help the standards process. We need to be considering both. And the AI issue realizes that we have probably not facilitated that conversation enough. And it kind of in some of our prep meetings coming into this, we kind of recognize that. So in the coming in the coming months, we're gonna kind of scrum to figure out how we can create a forum. It means that the easy answer is also we can mail in list, but we feel we need to do more than that. We need to create some kind of facilitative structure to get community input and kind of community decision making to come up with either the practices, the norms. We we don't really kind of understand what the shape of that is gonna be, but we wanna make sure we have a forum. We bring the community in, and we wanna think a little bit about that. If folks have ideas on how to convene kind of such a forum and we're not sure what comes out of that, like, what does a practice look like? Is it an RFC? Is it more? Is it kind of less? Kind of what exactly is it, but we realize we need to have a structure to think about both how to harness AI, kind of accelerate where those are, codify that, make that broadly aware. And equally, it's impacting negatively the standards process. So how do we intervene as a result of that? Okay.

[01:00:56] **Martin Thomson**: Thanks, Roman.

[01:00:56] **Roman Danyliw**: That's great.

[01:00:57] **Roman Danyliw**: Okay. And then the first one, I wrote down better tools. I think it was for appeal processing, moderation. Did I have that right?

[01:01:08] **Martin Thomson**: Oh, for t better tools the TLS process. The TLS process was a disaster, and, obviously, the the chairs did the best with the tools they had. Right. But they were obviously those tools were inadequate to the task. Right.

[01:01:25] **Roman Danyliw**: Yeah. I agree. I think, certainly,

[01:01:28] **Charles Eckel**: one of the

[01:01:29] **Roman Danyliw**: things we're gonna get, and hopefully, there are, I think, many mention many dimensions to kind of the TLS I wouldn't begin to kind of unpack. The one I think I have an easy answer for is there there are some kinds of observations around what's happening around code of conduct. When we will have the new procedures created by the new moderator team for that comes from RFC 9,945. I believe minimally there will be some new tools there. At GenDispatch, I we saw the an inkling of maybe we need to be talking more about how we do assessment on consensus. So it's more broadly kind of appreciated. So we have repeatable practices. I could also see that that would be a direction kind of in the future. I don't know if I that there's one particular silver bullet approach for what's per se happening in TLS. But given that we got five appeals from just the last time we met coming from that working group and got a few more before that, I think your ISG definitely appreciates, you know, that help help is needed. Anyone else want to add to that?

[01:02:26] **Deb Cooley**: So I will agree. There's work to be done. And the chairs, and I, and the rest of the ISG will work on this. It's definitely you're definitely correct. It is definitely out of control, and it definitely needs to be changed.

[01:02:50] **Roman Danyliw**: Okay. We'll take the next speaker.

[01:02:53] **John Klensin**: Arnaud.

[01:02:54] **Arnaud Taddei**: Yes. Hi. Arnaud with no affiliation. Some people will be happy to know that this is probably my last ITF meeting. So a few things here. First of all, I completely sympathize with the situation that you are facing on on the TLS group that that I have no words. I have my full support and help for what they were to suffer. I just could not imagine this could happen. But there is one thing regarding the code of conduct is that as as you SG17 here, I had to revoke my first member of a member state. Person that, by the way, is causing you problems here as well, but I succeeded. Right? So my point is that if you succeed to change that, you're going to have a better life, and I can only encourage you to go in this direction because we, all of us, basically celebrated that this person left. K? So that's serious. It was something that happened. I can just encourage you on that. The second point on the tooling and Agentic AI is there as tooling for us to help creating or modifying and so on. I must say it's unbelievable what you can do with it. So on my side, I'm encouraging everybody. We do a battle of sharing between ourselves because that's just something that needs to happen. We cannot stop it. Can we graduate? I don't know. Can we make it under, you know, good practices? I don't know, but we are exploring. Let's share our best practice there. Finally, on the Agentic AI sessions. I am exactly no surprise on the opposite point as Martin. I appreciate that the ISG made and proposed a number of both on agentic AI. I think it is necessary. We have a race against something that is taking us too fast. And I I'm happily surprised with some of the discussions. I'm less happy see surprised to see some of the outcome. I would really have liked to see DAN to be accepted. In fact, I am on the opposite side that I would encourage the ASG to be more prescriptive. I'm looking at Eric here, if possible, because you are not alone. So I see two things here that do not work for me. One is the ossification of certain teams on their stuff because they have done that for thirty or twenty years with no way to get even a discussion about that. The second thing is I see an inward looking of this community completely ignoring what's happening outside of ATF. I'm glad to see Peter is here for 3GPP, that I'm here for ITU-T SG17, and some of you actually recognize that. But he's going so fast. I mean, you can't just stay there. Some of you are going to leave here because they are not finding the place to develop their work, and they need it. So I can only encourage you to be more prescriptive, accelerate, because the clock is ticking. I will stop at that. Thank you.

[01:06:19] **Roman Danyliw**: Thanks for the reminder on the timer. And just to be concrete on the idea of sharing best practices on AI and standards organization, that's an excellent idea. For folks interested in that topic, there'll be the recording from the working group chair session where a particular implementation of how we use AI to help in the standards process was introduced. And I think at the RastWRG, which I think is happening later this week, someone will correct me. I believe there's a couple presentations on that, so that material will be available. Excellent. Next up, John, remotely.

[01:06:53] **John Klensin**: Two things that I'll try to re brief. The first is that I may have missed it because I was unfortunately called away with a piece of urgency of what may be the critical time. But I believe that we should be getting at least a report of the number of inquiries the ombudsman's team is getting in in a in a meeting gap in a meeting gap. And I hope for the same thing with with the moderation team when that comes around and actually starts dealing with questions. It's important information for the community to have in terms of how much the activity level is there. Second, and probably more important and immediate, is is not a complaint about any particular set of discussed votes or comment or ISG comments. But we've had a micro controversy since the time RFC two one one nine was adopted as to whether the use of the term should or should not in a document, needs to come along with a explanation of what the exception cases are. And I have consistently been on the side of those who feel like there should be such an explanation, but it has never been a requirement. And I'm concerned if it's not a requirement when the ISG comes along and and lists a number of places where the document doesn't do that. So this is a request the ISG clarify what they think is the situation there and necessary initiates a update to BCP 14, which clarifies what the rules are about the use of should and should not. So we're consistent across the board and that working groups don't get what to use the term West might object to ambushed by these questions or comments or complaints. And again, not a complaint about any particular issue, but we've gotten ourselves into a situation where there's a lack of clarity there and we'd be much better off having that clarity at the time working groups producing documents rather than showing up and on ESG voting. Thank you.

[01:09:17] **Roman Danyliw**: Thanks, John. I wanna make sure I understood. I believe your first question was around you want more transparency on the processing of cases by the ombuds team and the mod team. And assuming that's the case, the ombuds numbers are published in the I in my chair report at every meeting. So if you check this meeting as report, you'll find the numbers in there. The last meeting so it started two meetings ago, so you'll you'll find them going back at least to two meetings. And the mod team is an update

[01:09:46] **John Klensin**: I I didn't notice it there. If it's there, I apologize for the comment.

[01:09:51] **Roman Danyliw**: Yeah. No worries. Yeah. The the mod the the ombuds team kinda started rolling those out, so those numbers are now available. On the idea of modifying the the BCP on keyword draft, the ISG is not working on personally minting a draft. We would welcome certainly the someone from the community giving us a starting point and figuring out pathfinding where we should go.

[01:10:13] **Martin Thomson**: Roman, I wanna also add that the ISG has a statement on BCP 14 language.

[01:10:19] **Roman Danyliw**: Yes. If you are not aware of that statement, yeah, certainly, there is also that.

[01:10:24] **John Klensin**: I I I I I am aware of the statement, but expresses a preference as I read it. A preference, not a rule. And, again, if we're gonna have large numbers of comments on on a draft at last call time, we really invite personal, not very humble opinion, deep rule and clarity about that, not an ASG statement alone.

[01:10:49] **Charles Eckel**: John, can I also point out that a comment is not blocking? It's a suggestion from the AD, but you don't have to implement it. So we can comment on that.

[01:11:01] **John Klensin**: With regard to this should problem, there's a funny issue, which is that working groups are generally expected to respond to those comments rather than ignoring them, even though they may not be binding. And for one of these should cases, it creates a situation in which choice number one is to modify the documents put in that explanation, and choice number two is to work up that explanation so it can be used as a as as a response to the ISG member in order to move the document forward. So, again, we're in a little bit of a more we're in a slightly more complicated situation here that I think is generally understood, and I think it'd be worthwhile to clarify it. Again, no attention to that particular document. I'm happy that you people are doing your job, but, but this is a loose end. And the fact that it's been a loose end for thirty years doesn't help very much.

[01:11:59] **Rich Salz**: So,

[01:12:01] **Cullen 'Fluffy' Jennings**: John, I think I still owe you a reply to your email. You send me one week or two, but I'm quite busy as you can imagine with these IETF meetings. Regarding an update to BCP-fourteen, honestly, I will be the first one to upload it because it forced us as an IEG evaluation to be sure that RSE 2,119 is really enforced. I agree it's a guidance, And I have sometimes worked with the authors and the working group about the uppercase should or the uppercase should not and the equivalent because it's quite often most of the time to find very easily a crystal clear and crisp specification about what they should. You can quite often replace them by mask because people are afraid. And what you can do quite often, you get mask unless another construct like this. It's I see some people laughing. It takes time, but you can do it. And I'm pretty sure we will manage it through it on the specific draft, John.

[01:13:03] **John Klensin**: And and and and again, on the specific draft, I'm not commenting. I agree with Wes. I'm glad all of you are doing your jobs. And I understood and I understand everybody is stretched too thin, including both you and me. But as to the rest of your comment, we're we're in complete agreement. The only thing I'm raising now is that this stuff ought to be sufficiently clarified that we don't have to iterate on it in these kinds of ways. And that authors and working groups are not surprised when this come across as as complaints at last call rather than very clear guidance much earlier. So I think we're in complete agreement.

[01:13:42] **Cullen 'Fluffy' Jennings**: I think we agree.

[01:13:43] **Roman Danyliw**: Very good. Thanks, John. Rich, you're up next.

[01:13:49] **Rich Salz**: Hi. Rich Sauls. Of the six appeals that came through this past year, I think four of them had the nonconformant language that the IESG put out a statement saying is disruptive. And then they all had,

[01:14:04] **Jim Reid**: oh, but in the interest

[01:14:05] **Rich Salz**: of letting you know, having an appeal channel, we're gonna ignore it or let it through. As a member of the community, please stop doing that. The person who does these is not learning the lesson that you have to behave according to the civil standards of the IETF. And so the next time, just send it back, please.

[01:14:29] **Roman Danyliw**: We are very much sensitive to the dynamic you are describing. And for this reason, we structured the the guidance that would allow two chain two levels below us to do that. But as an but as an open standards organization, we need a defined appeal path, and we're balancing really the equity of ensuring that there always is an aperture for an appeal with what's happening what's happening in the rest of the organization. I appreciate the tension that that has created.

[01:14:58] **Rich Salz**: But do you really think that putting an ineffective noise paragraphs that has completely annoyed the rest of the community is a valid way to open keep the appeal path open?

[01:15:11] **Roman Danyliw**: We are all I could say is we are trying our best to kinda manage the consistency of the process with the consistency of the process with the efficiency of what's happening. Okay. In that case, Tim, you're up next.

[01:15:28] **Tim Chown**: Hi there. Tim Chown. A couple of points, comments, questions. Drawing on what Jay actually posted about the survey. And I think the second thing I'm gonna say is for you guys, maybe the first one is more general. First one is about diversity. I've not been for about five meetings. And Jay was saying from the survey, it's it seems that progress is being made in diversity. But I see in the IAB and the ISG, there are certain visible dimensions to diversity, but there's one that's clearly not there. There's only one woman on, I think, on both the IV and the ISG that we've seen today, for example. I don't know whether you want to make any comments on that and whether you feel obviously, everyone, I'm sure, here is very capable of what they're doing. But do we want to, or what do you think we can do to improve that? The second one is the comment on the survey about, the speed with which the ITF moves, which I assume is too slow rather than too fast. What do you think we can do differently? What can you guys as ADs do differently? What can we as working group chairs and participants do differently? Are there things that we're learning maybe early from RASP RG that we can do differently? Oh, well. What yeah. What can we what can we do differently? I I would like to think there's something we can do. We seem to quite often just work in, like, three huge waves of effort each year as the the draft deadlines come in for each meeting. Should we be meeting more remotely? Should we have more interims? But then that's effort on the chairs, on the ADs. Yeah. What do you think? Is there something we could do to make make things progress faster?

[01:17:10] **Roman Danyliw**: Okay. So taking the first question, as Jay as Jay kind of noted that what we're seeing in the new participant kind of pipeline is very different than the more durable kind of version of So we believe that some of the investments we may have in fact improved the diversity pushing into the pipeline. Your observation about the mismatch of the pipeline coming in and the leadership bodies is one that, yes, one does not, Even if one changes the composition of of what's injected in the pipeline, it takes some time to work its way kind of through the process. So one of the ways that I I know I've talked about at this plenary meeting was one of the stepping stones to leadership positions is having the intermediate leadership positions. And the one we were focused on, the access we were focused on was working group chairs. So one of the very conscious decisions that was made is in the cadre I wanna say if you I I don't know the the numbers necessarily at the tip of my tongue, probably IETF 112, 113. The ballpark numbers for the working group share population is something like two seventy five or kind of 300. Some people have one appointment, some have two. Each group has at least two at this point. The fraction kind of has three. So what we focused on is reducing the number of instances where the same individual has has many different working group chair appointments. But the crucial thing to provide more experience in kind of leadership to ladder up potentially to these other leadership bodies because the community seems to feel that there's a tight link is do the one plus one, which is you take one experienced chair, and then you have someone that's never had that role. And this gives you a larger cadre of future working room chairs, but also gives you more people in a larger pool to to respond to that. And I believe when we pulled those numbers last when we were very consistent in implementing that policy, when I briefed that, I think a smidge under 50% was the nature of that of that appointment. And we were able

[01:18:56] **Tim Chown**: to I would encourage you to report on that in the next plenary maybe just just to give some of those figures, give some of the evidence there just just to encourage us all.

[01:19:05] **Roman Danyliw**: Okay. Very good. I mean, I periodically report on that. We can certainly dig those those numbers up again. And I I swear it's either the 21 or 22 plenary has those numbers from in flight. And then you asked about the speed at which the the IETF is operating. I think that there are a number of kind of dimensions to that. The one that the the ISG is not gonna directly kind of talk about, but Jay talked about is there's many parts of that pipeline. There's the RPC pipeline, and there's gonna be a community consultation to kind of explore all that. There's gonna be deeper kind of deeper kind of exploration about what makes kind of sense in the pipeline. If you're asking, what can the ISG do to make everything before that go faster? I I think there's a whole lot of different ways to kind of approach that. One of the ones that we saw that we just got dual sided community feedback was cherry picking things out of the out of the side meetings and things that we were seeing and trying to promote them to accelerate things to either make a decision that we shouldn't be in this business or we're not with throwing a a big community kind of process. Kinda one example that's, you know, not at all necessarily representative of everything that's happening. Mixed feedback kind of on that. I don't know if I have a cogent quick answer to how to make everything kind of go faster inside the work

[01:20:22] **Martin Thomson**: the the in inside the

[01:20:23] **Roman Danyliw**: working groups. And I would look to my other ADs about what are the tactical things that we should be doing to to to kinda make it better I fully understand. Kind of community feedback on that.

[01:20:32] **Tim Chown**: The amount of time the ADs put into it is much more than me as a working group chair or me when I was a participant. We could dive in and act very easily. But you guys, it's it's constant. It's you know, you've got your two weekly meetings. You've got everything else. You need help with reviews, etcetera, etcetera. It's a thank you for doing what you do, but is there anything we can do better, any way we can help you or you help us, I think is the question.

[01:20:54] **Roman Danyliw**: Other ideas want to comment? Ketan.

[01:20:56] **Ketan Talaulikar**: Yeah. So this may not be representative of entire I ITF and, you know, maybe of some working group that I involved with. One of the things which would help is really people reviewing, contributing to not just their own work, but other work. Sometimes we see this thing where, you know, that's not happening, and that can slow down the progression of work. So that's one observation that I have I would like to share.

[01:21:26] **Roman Danyliw**: I don't wanna sort of clip this question kind of short. I mean, let's please kind of answer if you have a position, but I observe a deep queue, and so we have to keep moving.

[01:21:34] **Tommy Pauly**: So just quickly, when I was looking at this from my area after reading those verbose feedback, what I found as I tore it apart is that I was the biggest blocker. And so one of the things just as a public you know, we're all in this together. Right? So I'm publicly saying that's part of what I've been doing is having accelerated review on my part such that it's all there beforehand. Because I was the AD a couple of times where a discuss came in the day before a telechat, That's not cool and I'm acknowledging that. Everyone in this room is volunteering almost always, their free time. Right? So I'm with you. There's not one. It's just one bit at a time.

[01:22:18] **Charles Eckel**: And as to diversity, would just say as I I was on the NOMCOM last year as the ISG liaison, and NOMCOM can only pick from the people who are nominated and who accept the nominations. If you are an on time eligible, please consider serving. If you are nominated, please consider accepting the role one doing the interview even if you don't think you'll get picked. I didn't think I'd get picked, and here I am. And please consider it. Give Namcom options because if Namcom's choices for a given position are three white men, you're gonna get a white man

[01:22:59] **Tara Tarakiyee**: in the role.

[01:23:00] **Tim Chown**: Okay. Thank you.

[01:23:03] **Roman Danyliw**: Rohan.

[01:23:04] **Cullen 'Fluffy' Jennings**: Hi. Rowan Johns. I'm not sure that this is whether this is for the LLC or for you guys or both or some combination. We'll let you know. But I figured. Looking forward to booking my flights to San Francisco soon. I recall a certain San Francisco ITF meeting that was right before the start of the Iraq war, and there were protests two blocks from the IETF hotel, which turned out to be mostly okay for everybody involved. It certainly wasn't really a wasn't a dangerous situation. The current the next IETF is scheduled six days after after the date of a scheduled US election. What is the community's mitigation plan if norms are much further eroded after the after that date?

[01:24:10] **Roman Danyliw**: So I'm gonna be respectful to the question. We'll answer that during the LLC time.

[01:24:16] **John Klensin**: Sure.

[01:24:20] **Roman Danyliw**: Ecker.

[01:24:21] **Eric Rescorla**: Ecker. It's been quite a while, but I wanted to follow-up on, Martin Thompson's comments about, AI here. So, you know, on AI generated input, I agree our defenses are proving inadequate. I know there's been a lot of discussion about AI generated drafts and disclosure, but I'm actually much more concerned about AI generated mailing list traffic. The harm here is just, like, a huge amount of traffic that is kinda non like, superficially responsive, but actually nonresponsive. You just need to wade through. You know, if I send if I send 10 lines and I get back 50 because someone just typed that into Claude, that's not really a sustainable situation. So I know that Martin's observed that authorship means you take responsibility for your text, and that's just not consistent with, like, people behaving that way. I do think we need some new norms here, and we're gonna need the chairs to take up a more active role. And, unfortunately, there's norms when it looks like people are just, like, spitting out, you know, you know, LLM output. I'm You not saying you shouldn't be using LLM, but I'm saying, you know, if if you're the third person to write to to to have a message that says, here's the theme, maybe you should be asking, you know, whether you're actually, you know, generating your own textures, letting Cloud thing for you. Secondarily, on the topic of AI bots, I share Martin's concern about the number of quality of these AI bots. There's clearly a huge amount of interest in this topic, and for good reason. But it's also a topic where we have a limited amount of historical involvement expertise. And that leaves us in a weak position to evaluate which work is real and which work is there and above, generate a process that doesn't really reflect widespread support, but there's something else. This has been an issue both in terms of boss and in terms of dispatch. We had a dispatch interim where basically everything just got punted because it was all kind of stuff that, like, just was not going anywhere. And it's not a great situation where we burn a lot of meeting time to tell people no. So I think what is required here is some strong leadership and the leadership to feel comfortable saying, you know, I understand you wanna do this, but it's not ready. And, and and you're not gonna succeed, and you gotta come back with something better. I I know it's not a pleasant situation to be in as an AD, but it's something, like, that the ADs and the church will need to do. And I think that, you know, at least in my perspective, the community they would have community support from, you know, beat many decisions. So I I I I would encourage the chairs to feel the chairs and the ADs to feel empowered to, you know, exercise their tactical judgment, which is why they were appointed as positions rather than just turning the crank.

[01:26:33] **Roman Danyliw**: Understood. Thanks for that feedback. On the first the first On the first point? Okay. No feedback this time. On that first point, Eckert, definitely, the interaction on the mailing list is part of part of what the ISG has definitely heard from we've heard it from the working room chairs. We've heard it from different kind of director kind of reviewers or how the back and forth definitely goes. And in addition to identifying mitigations for that and with those associated norms, that that would have to feed back to some kind of training or kind of summarization component. So broadly, working group chairs understood they have the resources they need to when they encounter those situations. On the idea of ADs taking more responsibility and ownership for how the bots were kinda selected and doing their due diligence. I think this is a it's a subjective call. I mean, your feedback is taken unless

[01:27:24] **Cullen 'Fluffy' Jennings**: And there's a responsibility for one of the AI involved. I always prefer to somehow on allowing a bot even if I'm not fully convinced to run it rather than closing a bot that could have been run correctly. It's me. Now on the specific bot, right, on the down bot, of course, nothing is set in stone. The the charter that's been discussed will not be the charter that will be going. As you know, the process is to get the community involved there. So it's really up to people in this room and outside to work with the down chair to make a good charter and possibly create the working group.

[01:28:01] **Eric Rescorla**: For the record, I think that buff was prematurely held. I think that I think that buff was was not well organized and was prematurely held. So that that so just, like, you, of course, have made up your own decision, but I'm just I'm just saying that, like, that's one of the things we're talking about.

[01:28:14] **Roman Danyliw**: Okay. Thanks. Fair enough. Eric.

[01:28:18] **Eric Rescorla**: Eric Nygren. On the I guess, continuing the AI topic theme, as powerful as a tool as as it is, are there areas where we need to react more quickly if as from the ITF to in a defensive measure? In particular, one area where start work is IANA code points, where there are code point registries where the kind of past things of, like, expert review might have or first come, first served were fine when humans were writing drafts. But now as we start having AI generated drafts, the rate at which code point usage could go up maybe coming go up orders of magnitude. Is that something where we need where the ISG is looking at at kind of giving out guidance to expert reviewers in the short term so that we so that we can kind of get ahead of this?

[01:29:07] **Roman Danyliw**: To my knowledge, IN is kinda tracking kind of kind of in broad kind of strokes what what what's kind of going through the pipeline to include we you know, they'd regularly discuss to us some of the some of their approaches even for first come, first serve, which could potentially have some of those problems even before the age of AI. In no way am I suggesting that tomorrow this may not appear from the information we have now. This is, at least right now, not a phenomenology. Not that we shouldn't consider it and shouldn't have some telemetry or oversight that would give us insight if, you know, if and when that if and when that occurs, then we would hopefully have a mitigation, you know, lined up when when that's happening. So, yes, I think that goes on to the larger list of considerations when we come up with the norms norms in this future form. Good point. Thanks.

[01:29:56] **Martin Thomson**: I'm over here. Is this alive? Yes. It is. I'll just lift it up so I can speak. I have a couple of things that are both around norms as well. One of which is possibly a cultural change a little bit to the ITF that I think we need to make, which is identifying a human being. That in the past, it was you had to have a human being in order to get text into things. It's much easier for non human beings to send things now, and requiring that there be an actual human being accountable for everything sent to the IETF, I think, is going to become really important, and we should get ahead of that. And then following on from that is requiring that accountable human being to be in the loop. And in my newfound role on the moderation team, I think it's going to be very important for us to be able to identify that a human has taken themselves out of the loop and blocked them from interacting with the ITF, and there might be some rate limiting requirements we need to build right through our processes to catch that before it goes crazy and cut those loops, because otherwise we're just one accident away from everything being wiped pretty fast. And so, yeah, those two things. Identifying a specific human being who takes accountability and having the norms be that that human being remains in the loop and doesn't automate anything that they don't check.

[01:31:12] **Roman Danyliw**: Understood. It will be a critical consideration in the future. Oh, please.

[01:31:19] **Tommy Pauly**: So it's come up enough times that I'll just quickly point out that there is an action item that a few of us are working on to write such guidance. You're not hearing specifics from us because it doesn't exist yet. And so we want to speak with one voice. So to everyone that that's underlying and the chat I'm sure I can't see, that is something that we are exploring because we share that. To the point of real humans, note that we can use what we already require, which is that someone posts with a real name for definitions of real that we then need to be able to hold accountable, and that is something that we are considering.

[01:31:57] **Martin Thomson**: So I just wanted to answer that. I I saw something that looked like it could be not a real human being fairly recently that had a name and a domain that someone created for it, but it was a sock puppet. Sock puppets have always been a problem, but we have a sock making machine now.

[01:32:17] **Roman Danyliw**: Jim.

[01:32:20] **Jim Reid**: Hello. Speaking of AI, you've all heard of AI. Right? I have a question that, I'd like to leave you with as you think about how you're going to better manage work that's going on here in use of facilities and services. So three weeks ago, it really was three weeks ago, for the first time, I actually had a a thought, a need that I would want to actually schedule a side meeting. I thought it was great years ago when we first added side meetings and we added a room. And then over time, that became two rooms. Then we added this nice scheduling tool. Used to be a sign up sheet up

[01:32:58] **Martin Thomson**: on the on the front of

[01:32:59] **Jim Reid**: the board and all that. I think all of that's great. But three weeks ago, when I was I was thinking I wanted a meeting for my working group, and we had a particular technical topic that I knew we wanted to take outside the meeting. So I went to the page, and I figured, oh, let me check this out. How do you schedule meetings? What does this look like? I saw a few meetings scheduled there. So then I started to look and pick, okay. So let me pick some slots that are gonna work for me so I can offer it to this group of people. And then I went back to the page, and half the meeting rooms were gone half the meeting slots were gone. And then I'm just sitting there watching the page, and the slots are just filling up. I mean, this was three weeks ago. The meeting hasn't even started yet, and the slots were gone. And you look, and most of these meeting slots are related to AI things. Okay? So my question to you really is I thought that we we talk about, the amount of AI stuff that's here, and it's interesting. We can certainly debate whether or not the a you know, ISG made good choices in in the BOFs that were chosen. But more importantly, people who were not selected for a BOF, well, they've got it out here. What we have is a second IETF that's forming, and they're using the side meeting rooms to do it. And they're just having all the discussions they wanna have that they can't otherwise get announced and available in a formal way. So my question for consideration here is, are side meetings, what is the purpose of those rooms? I guess I had my own personal expectation that the purpose of those rooms was for actual IETF work that's going on that needs an opportunity to discuss something and get together. I mean, maybe that's a bridge too far. I don't know. But but I'm asking for some consideration as you think about managing the work and use of facilities. Should we think about whether or not, those meeting rooms should have some kind of priority? You know, should they be for actual working groups, actual work that's going on? Or I mean, they basically have been taken over. You know? I mean, they're just not available for IETF work. That's the observation that I make. And and I ask you to think about that as you think about managing work. Is there something that we can do there in terms of managing the priority of where those side meeting rooms go to? I had to find a different way to get the meeting happen that I needed. Could not use a side meeting. I mean, I managed it, but there you go. Thanks.

[01:35:19] **Roman Danyliw**: The ISG is intimately aware of of the continued evolution of of side meetings. In recent years, the idea that it is just extra space for working groups to have more organic, non working you know, low level kind of kind of conversations. It has not been like that for some time. We have been watching and trying to find the right balance between this area where all we're trying to do is provide a room, which turned into proponents saying, we need comms. Then we need cannabis. And it became more formal and formal. And we're trying to kind of find the right balance that this is officially not working group space. This is not research kind of group space. So we have actually analyzed the larger bucket of what's happening, and there certainly is what you're what is, I think, the more historical understanding. But we also have proto research groups kind of doing things. We also have a lot of what we would summarize as pre BOF storming and norming of ideas. And sometimes it does manifest into a BOF. Think the the several of the BOFs reconvene have met a number of kind of times as well. And then we also have mini conferences that people are using the space for kind of in there to recurrently talk about things that will not ultimately make its way into the standards or the research process as far as we can tell. So that's so that's really to convey we are not we are not blind to the dynamics that are happening. What is different actually about this meeting is that, to my knowledge, this is the first time that we actually ran out of side meeting slots. In previous meetings, you may not have gotten your preferred slot, but there was a slot always available. And I think that's new information for us that we have reached the point where where we have kinda run out of slots. The tension that for the ISG is the more it puts its its finger in it to this unofficial thing that we are not managed, the more ultimate responsibility we have. And if the signal from the community is that they would like the ISG to interdict the kinds of slots that are taking and make valued choices about what's in and kinda what's out and provide that facilitation, we can certainly kind of explore in that direction. But this is the tension we're managing to give the community the ability, this freedom to to operate in stormy norm and then bring it in the process. But if we ultimately hear from the community that there's interest, they want us to to make kind of choices. This one's in. This one's out. This one already met. No. You don't get another one. Or even talk about what's allowed to be kind of brief. We we could kind of get there. Right now, the rule we have is you can't run a working group session in there. So working group chairs can't call it a third working group slot or a second working group slot. Call consensus. That's roughly the line in addition to the note while applying. We welcome kind of more input kind of on the community side where that balance is. That's roughly where we are right now. So we are not unaware.

[01:37:59] **Jim Reid**: So maybe my question then is to the community and to all of us here in this room. You know, what do we want from side meeting rooms? That's right. I I take your point that, you know, you're not managing them, and you haven't been to date, and all of that's fine. I get it. If you're looking for input, I so one community member asking for consideration of how to better manage how these timely slots are used up. And the question is really to us, you know, really to all of us. If you want complete open flexibility, oh, fine. If that's a consensus, then that's what we'll do. But other folks should please take the opportunity to tell your I your ADs and and the IST in general, you know, if we'd like to manage that better so that they're better available.

[01:38:41] **Roman Danyliw**: Very much. We welcome that. And the last one to your point, I didn't comment on the fact that there's the second IETF inside the side meetings. We are also aware of that and the tension people have, their ability to manage. Are they gonna go to the working group, or are they gonna try to track potentially this new work that's happening and the timeliness of kind of scheduling relative to that. We are we are aware. We're looking for feedback. Alright. I see Andrew next in the queue.

[01:39:04] **Andrew Campling**: Yep. Hi. Andrew Camping. Coincidentally, I came partly to make the same point that Jim's just made about the AI task force that always sends a meet at the same time as the IGF. Mhmm. As a suggestion, I think it would be helpful to at least have some very light touch curation to ensure there's space for other topics without getting too heavy handed in it. So that that would be at least maybe a starting point. Conversely, on the AI boss, I'd push back against the comments made earlier and say, think we shouldn't make perfect the enemy of good, as the saying goes. Yes. You could have been crafting those both sort of briefs, whatever, for the next couple of meetings by which time it will be irrelevant to have hold held them, you know, because it we're just not moving at the right speed. So I think it was absolutely the right call to do something now rather than do something better later that was not relevant, and who cares what we think. And and final point really briefly, we said earlier, but I I think we all owe the TLS co chairs and AD a vote of thanks for still bothering to turn up given the appalling behavior that they've been at the receiving end on. So thank you.

[01:40:37] **Roman Danyliw**: Alright. Thank you for that feedback, Andrew. Tara.

[01:40:41] **Tara Tarakiyee**: Hello. Tara Tarakiyee, Sovereign Tech Agency. So first of all, plus one to the solving the side meetings problem. I really missed not having the pitch the public interest acknowledges group meeting this time. But the main comment I wanted to say up here was just to I mean, thank you all for taking the issue of diversity seriously. I think it's something we talk about nearly every ITF, at least that I've been. But I think at this point, we have to stop talking about as if it's a pipeline issue. Like, just simply telling people to apply will will will never solve this. It's a structural issue. It's not the compositions of the of the different groups here are not an accidental byproduct of the way we work. They're a result of it. So to paraphrase something said this morning in the GenDispatch about the draft on noncom gender composition. Like, you can't, in the same time, want change and then be afraid of it. So I think there's lots of smart people here. We can figure out how to change the structures so that it results in a much more equal representation. Because, I I mean, as we say, like, the Internet is for end users. It should represent all end the people making the decisions that about this Internet should also reflect all end users. And yeah. I mean and also, you forgive me if I'm being a bit incredulous seeing how quickly, like, the community has moved around AI, whereas this topic has been discussed meeting after meeting. Lots of interest in solving the problem, but not lots of movements towards doing the running code of solving it. So thank you.

[01:42:34] **Roman Danyliw**: Thank you for your intervention. Asama?

[01:42:39] **Osama**: Asama, to you, Drestin. Thanks. First, I'd like to have a few topics, which is starting with the BoF, like the AI BoFs. I think many people have already commented that the BoFs were not good. I had, like, a very basic question on how is that AI different from any other workload that we have worked in the ITF, like, the protocols, all the work that has been done? How is that AI that we are all talking about not only I mean, by v I don't mean only academia or the industry itself, like, all people involved. Like, what exactly is it that makes AI different from any other workload, any other protocol that we have used? That simple basic question hasn't got any answers or any let's say, my perspective, any any any response or any answer on what exactly it is it that we are selling with the name of AI specifically. But there still remains a lot of interest, and I have seen in the side meetings that and also there was a point about side meetings. A lot of side meetings are just happening because there is no AI working group, so to say, with the label of AI. People want to do something, but they are not being given a working group, so to say, or a research group. So things are happening in the side meetings that people are somehow trying to do something, trying to figure out what that is. But I think the very basic questions still remain unanswered in this form as I have given an example. The second point I want to make is that also was mentioned about AI, people generating the drafts using AI. It's very easy to generate a draft now, but it's also putting a lot of workload on the reviewers who are kind of review reviewing the drafts in a sense that like, with one command, you can generate a draft, but now somebody has to put in a brain in order to understand what that is, what these terms are, and what the draft actually is trying to achieve and so on. So that workload shift from drafting or authoring or editing, whatever, to reviewing that workload balance needs to be somehow managed. At least in the academia, we have a thing that if you use AI, you properly acknowledge it somehow in acknowledgments or wherever. I think we need these best practices also in the ITF at least that people who are reviewing the drafts, they know that somehow some part of it or a substantial part of the draft was written using AI, and the authors, even if they use that, other than the acknowledgments, they really have to take responsibility that AI was used and any mistake, any vulnerability, any kind of problem, they are responsible for it and not the AI itself. The third point I want to make is also somehow related to the side meetings. It was said in us official meeting of the RATS working group that consensus has been developed in a side meeting. That's completely wrong as far as I understand. Side meetings are not supposed as far as currently the instructions go and the best I can understand currently, side meetings are not supposed to have the working group business being hold in there, and please correct me if I'm wrong, all of you. And it was exactly stated like that in a RATS working group official meeting that consensus has been developed in a site meeting that was held two days ago, that's something that blows my mind, and that's something we as a community need to understand that site meetings should not be used for the working group business, and consensus is to be developed within the working group business meetings and not in these site meetings. The fourth point I want to highlight also is that there are no processes in the ITF. The best I can understand is about the vulnerabilities for the Internet drafts and also for the I the the RFCs. If some vulnerability is found or some by some process, some implementation is vulnerable to the implementation of some Internet drafts, there has to be some process somehow that we can indicate somewhere that this draft is vulnerable to x y z CVE or x y z blah blah blah that I think should be a part of the draft itself and the security considerations or somehow it has to be incorporated. I was told that this is independent from what we do in the standards body, but I don't believe so that because an implementer has to really get a feeling of what is the security risk that he will obtain that that that he will be vulnerable to by using implement by implementing a Internet draft, which he's reading or is going to implement. So these are my four suggestions that I would like to request. Thanks.

[01:48:17] **Roman Danyliw**: Thank you for the feedback. To answer the one specific question, yes. Consensus is not called in a side meeting. It is not part of a standards process, as you kind of mentioned the other speakers. I observed with the queue is continuing to grow. We do wanna get feedback for the open mic. We are soon to be over kind of time, so I would just ask for all those coming up to the mic to be brief and pithy kind of in their point, and we will equally try in our response to be kind of responsive but brief. Next up, I see Peter.

[01:48:49] **Peter**: Hi. This hi. This is Peter. So about the time consumption of the AI discussions, I definitely agree that we could have better time total time control and quality control at discussions. But, actually, the site meetings I I see this gentleman discussing the purpose of site meetings. I think site meetings and buffs are instruments for ITF to understand and discuss and potentially incubating new work. So I think right now, site meeting does not represent ITF standings or does not go to official proceedings. The working group has their own resource to publish their own consensus and work on everything. So when you look at the total time consumption about AI discussion, there are four bots or three bots out of this the the whole ITF week. There was, like, a 130, a 150 total sessions. So that only takes up, like, 5% of the time. While AI is a new trillion dollar industry, I don't think that's really, like, really blocking the IT pipeline or anything. So, like, many working groups in the history are somehow experimental or well, although they try their best but failed. But I think at this time, some side meetings that or some boss that are doing at least I see the chairs and proponents are trying their best to present a problem statement and a gap and everything. I think those are these things that my message is simple, is that we should at least allow discussions and opportunities at the site meeting site meetings and both and, of course, with a good quality. Thanks.

[01:50:31] **Roman Danyliw**: Thanks for that feedback and a comment on your stats on number of session requests. You roughly have the size exactly right. Okay. Nathan, Nathaniel.

[01:50:41] **Mahesh Jethanandani**: Hello. Just a comment. I saw Jay Daley mention the comments that there's an email I can send comments to as well. Just for the side meetings, the biggest challenge that I found with it was trying to follow through on a link. It's going to an unrecorded Zoom meeting or something like that. The slides that are shared aren't easily accessible. And I think that that's I think that these side meetings could have more value if there was more organization when it's being presented as, you know, here's a link on the IETF website to side meetings. Here's an interface. In that process, if there was a way to have resources made available the same way as the working group meetings, that would add incredible amount of value. I know that adds additional labor and work, so there's a balance there. But that's that's the biggest challenge that I've had working or trying to interact with the side meetings.

[01:51:49] **Roman Danyliw**: Thank you for that feedback. I'm gonna catch that one instead of Jay. There is a Webex that's consistently provided for each of the each of the side meetings. The distinction is it is not meet the MeetEco, the the the overall kind of standards process kind of vehicle. That is an explicit design choice to separate the things that are inside the process versus the things that are outside the process. But there is Webex available for each of those meetings.

[01:52:16] **Sean Turner**: Hi. Sean Turner, a recovering finance person from the LLC board. I would like to, provide a solution to the, side meeting issue. If you would like to conflict with an ITF working group meeting, it should cost you some money. At the end of the day, we can decide what that is, but it's good to go. If you're not gonna conflict, it's free, and we'll figure that out. I think we're in this problem where it's a simple supply and demand problem, and it's free, so they're gonna fill up. If you wanna conflict with the actual work of the ITF, write a check.

[01:52:50] **Roman Danyliw**: Thank you, Sean, for your feedback. Ben.

[01:52:54] **Ben Roberts**: Yeah. Hi, Ben Roberts. I'm actually completely new to IETF. Welcome. Thank you. But this aspect, we've been hearing a lot about emails and AI flooding email lists. I'm on the board of AFRINIC, the Internet registry for Africa, and we've been having exactly the same problem on the policy development group, and it's gotten really bad and really sophisticated. We're also trying to work out what to do, so I'd like we to share experiences as we as we come up with solutions, but it's become a real serious problem with people, you know, really annoying everybody else who's actually a community member. But while, you know, it's not just about flooding of messages, repeating messages, it's actually making things unpleasant. So, yeah, thanks.

[01:53:38] **Roman Danyliw**: We look forward to the ability to share our practices. I can't say best practices, but as they evolve, the same thing, I think we look forward to do that with the ITUT. Thanks again for coming. Philip. There you are.

[01:53:51] **Phillip Hallam-Baker**: Yeah. Phil Hambaker. Yeah. The AI craze is recent, but AI is not. As you go, the the use case that Pete's been throwing at me is, oh, well, I've got one AI here, and when it talks to this, that AI there, they wanna drop into AI speak rather than have to express everything in natural language, which is great. Only that's exactly what Tim Berners Lee was going on about in this thing called the semantic web for thirty years. And so I I think that maybe what we should do is make them read his book first.

[01:54:37] **Roman Danyliw**: Thank thank you for that feedback. I observed that that has drained the queue, and we have the LLC in front of us. But I will behind us, I will ask one more time. Are there any other questions for the ISG? Someone going to the mic? No. Someone is leaving. Okay. Have a good night. No worries. Have a good night. Alright. Very good. So ISG, kind of thank you. And coming up to answer your questions is the ITF administration LLC.

[01:55:14] **Martin Thomson**: All

[01:55:19] **Roman Danyliw**: right. Very good.

[01:55:39] **Mirja Kühlewind**: Hello again. This is the LLC, board chair, chairman, board member, Jay, executive director. That's all we've got this time. So any questions, comments?

[01:55:54] **Roman Danyliw**: We don't wanna forget Rohan's question about San Francisco. Rohan, we punted you. Could you come back up to the mic and give us your question?

[01:56:04] **Mirja Kühlewind**: Yes. Thanks.

[01:56:08] **Cullen 'Fluffy' Jennings**: I came upstairs to change. Oh,

[01:56:10] **Roman Danyliw**: okay. We

[01:56:14] **Cullen 'Fluffy' Jennings**: have an election in The United States ostensibly on the November 5th. That's eleven days before IETF 121 starts. What mitigation plans, if any, do you have? What do you anticipate being able to do for IETF attendees in, you know, a variety of of bad to terrible situations?

[01:56:50] **Jay Daley**: Hi, Rowan. So we have nothing planned for any specific scenarios. That's not anything that we would do anywhere near at this stage. You know, need to be in a situation rather than guessing there. We do, however, have a BCP produced some time ago, which gives us guidance on how to manage emergency situations and and the timing of those emergency situations out from the actual meeting. So if anything were to happen that actually was something happening rather than being feared, then we would follow that BCP.

[01:57:35] **Mirja Kühlewind**: Thank you. Next in the queue. Is this the queue? Is this the old

[01:57:40] **Roman Danyliw**: queue? That is the queue.

[01:57:41] **Mirja Kühlewind**: So then it's Phil.

[01:57:43] **Roman Danyliw**: Sorry. Philip, are you in the queue or out of the queue?

[01:57:48] **Mirja Kühlewind**: This is maybe maybe that's the old queue or there's Jonathan then. There's

[01:57:53] **Colin Perkins**: only one here. Yeah. Is this can

[01:57:56] **Roman Danyliw**: you Yes.

[01:57:56] **Mirja Kühlewind**: Yes. We can hear you.

[01:57:59] **Jonathan**: So I was wondering just as a sort of follow-up to the previous question. What are the plans for keeping people who practice Judaism safe in Malaysia given that it is a criminal offense there? And are separate from being Israeli, seems to come up a lot given that I'm not Israeli.

[01:58:21] **Jay Daley**: We don't as I think you're probably aware, we don't make plans of that for the safety of individuals in that way. We haven't done that in any country in any IETF meeting. It is an individual choice about coming to meetings if there is someone can come to a meeting. We understand that there are often times when people cannot come to meetings. The the bigger picture answer though to your question, going, you know, I think going to the heart of it here, is that we live in a difficult world. We have a very, very broad set of ITF participants, and finding venues that everybody can be comfortable win every time is impossible. We have to, therefore, to be as fair as we can in distributing the pain. Now one of the biggest issues that we have and has repeatedly have had is about Asian participants unable to get visas, unable to travel to The US or North America or to Europe. And we also have a requirement to meet in Asia. So I understand that this is very difficult for a number of people to go to. As I understand, Singapore was very difficult for a number of people to go to. That is a reflection of the world that we live in where there are different norms. Now I don't mean to say that in a way as to devalue and I suggest that there are, you know, that there's some sort of moral equivalence here. That's not my point. Alright? But we do have situation where we simply have to distribute the pain because there is no other solution that we can achieve.

[01:59:59] **Jonathan**: I mean, was was there a reason Bangkok was not selected given that it's, you know, very close by and much more friendly?

[02:00:07] **Jay Daley**: We there are we have requirements and requests for multiple different countries because of the way that visas work and the way that people can travel for things. We are going to look at Bangkok again, definitely. Alright? But it is we cannot concentrate simply in single countries that every country we choose has problems. That's the problem. That's why we have to distribute it.

[02:00:36] **Mirja Kühlewind**: Thanks for taking that, Jay. I think that's there's no one else in the queue. Think the ISG drained all the energy. Well, thank you very much then.

[02:00:50] **Roman Danyliw**: No. No. Sorry. Wait. What?

[02:00:52] **Osama**: Oh, Martin.

[02:00:54] **Roman Danyliw**: Hi. Martin. Sorry. Martin Duke. I I would just like to endorse Sean's idea about the about side meetings. Side meeting rooms are actually one of the one of the few things we do that have a high marginal cost for the ITF. And if there's a lot of demand, would be great to get more, but that costs money. And I think, like, just just having some sort of I don't wanna say nominal fee, but but not large in the scale relative to the attendance fee here might help solve the problem just by getting more inventory and also constraining demand. Thanks.

[02:01:29] **Mirja Kühlewind**: Yeah. Thanks for the suggestion. That was it. Right? Am I missing anyone? No. Well, then I wish you all a good evening and see you tomorrow and next time.

[02:01:54] **Jim Reid**: Alright.

[02:02:00] **Roman Danyliw**: Oh, good to see you in.

[02:02:08] **Jim Reid**: It's alright.

[02:02:09] **Roman Danyliw**: Let me just get my bag all.