Subject: [Diversity] Attracting people from emerging regions into the IETF

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:28:08 -0700

Hi Kathleen, Suresh,

[Cc to diversity mailing list for comments]

I am attaching a draft which discusses about attracting people from 
emerging regions into the IETF.  There is a proposal in Section 3 
about the most effective way to contribute to the IETF.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Alejandro Acosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:08:55 -0430

Hi SM,
  Nice draft, I don't know why I believe I read it somewhere else but
based in the date it's impossible (deja vu?).
  Just a comment and this is more or less the way I helped a bit to the
IETF at the beginning:
  In section three you mention:

      - Can be objectively said to have actively participated in IETF
        activities for more than six months, and subjectively, such that
        those contributions are considered useful.

        For example, reviewing drafts, commenting on IETF Last Calls,
        writing code for drafts or taking part in interop testing are
        fine ways to be seen to have participated. Candidates whose
        contributions are considered more useful should be preferred
        over those who are less useful. Judging utility for
        contributions requires knowledge of the specific field.

  One more example that I think worth to mention is that it's valuable
-for the prospect fellow- doing some research such as: measuring
traffic, studying traffic behavior, evaluating implementations,
collaborating with authors of IDs, and of course sharing those results.
Some rephrasing is recommended.

  In section four I agree, I would suggest WG chair and area director
should only receive only filtered applications (after two or three
previous reviews). However I also would like to say that I don't think
this reviewed should not be mandatory.

See you,

Alejandro,

On 28/09/13 14:58, S Moonesamy wrote:
> emerging regions into the IETF.  There is a proposal in Section 3 about
> the most effective way to contribute to the IETF.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:25:05 -0700

> the most effective way to contribute to the IETF.

This looks like it could be quite a useful document.

In its current form, it's difficult to distinguish between factual 
descriptions/summaries of what is currently done, criticisms of problems 
with the current program or with what comes after, versus proposal(s) 
for new things to do.

In fact the stated goal of the document:

      "This document attempts to address, through a
    collaborative approach, the challenge of attracting people from
    emerging regions into the IETF."

is presumably what the existing ISOC program is seeking to do.  Hence 
the question is:  what is this draft going to do or to propose that is 
different.  (I think I can derive the answer from the body of the draft, 
but the Introduction should say it explicitly.)

I suggest making clear and specific references to ISOC's own texts on 
the topic.  In looking at the draft and some ISOC text, I suspect that 
some of the draft is attempting to paraphrase ISOC text.  That's fine, 
since it can be made more readable for the draft, but the linkage to 
original text needs to be made, with an explicit statement that the 
draft is paraphrasing.

To the extent that the draft is offering text that is semantically 
different from related ISOC text, it should cite the related text and 
explain the divergence.  (For example, ISOC might claim that a goal is 
to produce standards for ice cream but the draft might claim that the 
actual result is pie.)

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:46:55 -0700

Hi Alejandro,

Thanks for reviewing the draft.

>based in the date it's impossible (deja vu?).

It could be because the text in the draft was drawn from comments 
posted to this mailing list and to the IETF mailing list.  I wrote 
the entire draft yesterday.  It would not be possible for anyone to 
have read it before that. :-)

>Some rephrasing is recommended.

Some of the above, or even all, is covered by the text in Section 
3.  The main point is "actively participated in the IETF".  The 
second paragraph (re. for example) are examples for the reader to get 
a view of what could be considered as active participation.  It 
really depends on the evaluation panel as it is the people on that 
panel who determine whether, for example, the traffic measurement 
carried out is relevant input to some work the IETF is doing.

I discuss with you off-list to find out how to rephrase.

>this reviewed should not be mandatory.

Do you mean that WG chairs and Area Directors do not have to be on 
the evaluation panel (the comment about mandatory)?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:39:47 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 09:25 29-09-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>descriptions/summaries of what is currently done, criticisms of 
>problems with the current program or with what comes after, versus 
>proposal(s) for new things to do.

Ok.

Please note that the draft is not intended as criticism.  I am okay 
with removing any text which might be viewed as criticism.  I don't 
have a lot of material to work from.  As such it is difficult to 
provide factual descriptions of what is currently done, problems, etc.

>is presumably what the existing ISOC program is seeking to 
>do.  Hence the question is:  what is this draft going to do or to 
>propose that is different.  (I think I can derive the answer from 
>the body of the draft, but the Introduction should say it explicitly.)

There is the following in the Introduction section:

   "Section 2 discusses about the objectives of the existing ISOC
    Fellowship programme and the issues from an IETF perspective."

Should I move the following text:

   "The objectives of the fellowship are less well aligned with the
    expectations of the IETF as it focuses on meeting attendance.

to the Introduction section and mention the:

   "The most effective way to contribute to the IETF is through active
    participation and by reviewing and commenting about working group
    drafts."

into the Introduction Section too?

>I suggest making clear and specific references to ISOC's own texts 
>on the topic.  In looking at the draft and some ISOC text, I suspect 
>that some of the draft is attempting to paraphrase ISOC 
>text.  That's fine, since it can be made more readable for the 
>draft, but the linkage to original text needs to be made, with an 
>explicit statement that the draft is paraphrasing.

I'll add the following reference

http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/ietf-and-ois-programmes/internet-society-fellowship-0

as the first bullet list in Section 2 is from that web page.  There is also:

   "Attendance by technologists from emerging and developing 
economies is currently limited."

on the web page.

I'll also add a reference to

http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/ietf-and-ois-programmes/internet-society-fellowship-4

as the second bullet list in Section 2 is from there.

>different from related ISOC text, it should cite the related text 
>and explain the divergence.  (For example, ISOC might claim that a 
>goal is to produce standards for ice cream but the draft might claim 
>that the actual result is pie.)

Here is a quote from http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/04/ :

   "Overall participation is concentrated in some areas of the world, 
with little
    participation from Africa and South America, for instance."

And from http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/09/china/ :

   "For instance, what does networking need in South America or 
Africa, two areas that
    have a growing attendance in the IETF but are not yet so visible in the RFC
    publication graph?"

Should the draft mention "active participation" as the result the 
IETF would like to have or should it mention RFC publication as the result?

Note that the draft mentions "active participation" based on the comments at:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00337.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00339.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00340.html

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:42:58 +0530

Honestly I do not think that this para is factually true. I think it should
be removed. Otherwise it looks okay. For example, there was a fellow in the
last meeting in Berlin who did a small tutorial on Network traffic patterns
in games[1]. AFAIK He was from an academic background.

"
The existing selection criteria puts an emphasis on university-level
qualifications and the academic interests of the applicant. It has been
mentioned in discussions about academic participation that the IETF filters
out proposals from researchers simply because they just do not fit in
standardization work.
"
-- Vinayak
1. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-tsvarea-1.pdf

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:58 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> emerging regions into the IETF.  There is a proposal in Section 3 about the
> most effective way to contribute to the IETF.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 14:45:49 -0700

Hi Vinayak,

Thanks for the feedback.

At 12:12 29-09-2013, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
>Honestly I do not think that this para is factually true. I think it 
>should be removed. Otherwise it looks okay. For example, there was a 
>fellow in the last meeting in Berlin who did a small tutorial on 
>Network traffic patterns in games[1]. AFAIK He was from an academic background.
>
>"
>qualifications and the academic interests of the applicant. It has 
>been mentioned in discussions about academic participation that the 
>IETF filters out proposals from researchers simply because they just 
>do not fit in standardization work.
>"

The selection criteria was retrieved from 
http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/ietf-and-ois-programmes/internet-society-fellowship/selection-criteria 
:

"Selection for the Fellowship is competitive.  In order to qualify 
for an Internet Society Fellowship, applicants must:

  - Be a member of the Internet Society.

  - Hold a university-level computer science, information technology, or
    similar degree, or can demonstrate similar and relevant work experience.

  - Be employed in a technical or technical management capacity with a data
    network provider (including university networks), a technology vendor,
    a local technical association, or other similar organisation OR be a
    university-level computer science/information technology professor,
    lecturer, or student currently undertaking research in one or more areas
    of current IETF standardisation work.  Students must be enrolled in a
    graduate-level program (Masters or Ph.D)."

Note that the above is only part of the criteria.  Please refer to 
the URL mentioned above for the complete criteria.

Part of the paragraph from the draft is based on a comment from Aaron 
Yi Ding at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00344.html 
There were the following comments relating to contributions:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82583.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82585.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82588.html

The paragraph is not academic background.  There was a comment from 
Stephen Farrell:

   "reduce the background requirements (degrees and what not, and
    employer stuff) and all the predicting the future stuff (how
    this'll make me/the world better) and make it very clear that
    being an existing contributor is the main way to get one of
    these fellowships."

That paragraph is about reducing the background requirements.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Adiel Akplogan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:19:17 +0400

Hello SM,

This is a an interesting document. Thanks for working on it. Here are few contributions and comments:

1. I will suggest that that the draft goes beyond ISOC fellowship program and set a framework for any existing of future program that aim at improving participation and contribution from emerging economies. In addition, I see two distinct goals: One being to attract people, and the other one to make their participation sustainable/effective. Reading the draft I have the impression that it mainly addresses the latest aspect which is "sustaining participation from emerging countries". Maybe a different draft will be needed to address more effectively the "attracting" aspect.

2. Will it not be be more accurate to use "countries", "markets" or "economies" instead of region? In my view it could be hard/subjective to define an homogeneous geographic region as an emerging one. 

3. When talking about "attracting" people I think the critical aspect is to make the participation appealing to them, meaning nurturing their interest for Open standard in general and IETF work in particular. So, in the document while I believe that some of the issues are well identified, the proposed solutions are incomplete and lack a deeper analysis of the reason behind the issues. For instance when you set as requirement that candidate must have to participate to IETF work for 6 at least months, I doubt this can happen naturally if there is no incentive and hand holding to get them to that stage. One real issue we have to circumvent here is the fact that there is no (not yet) vibrant innovation industry in these economies which  could nurture engineers/technologists interest for standards in general and Open Standards in this particular context. So we need to find a sustainable way to create the interest first (which can be part of any fellowship process) and find probable interested people where they are (universities/technology school, innovation hubs that are flourishing all over emerging countries, http://www.ihub.co.ke/blog/2013/05/comparative-study-on-innovation-hubs-across-africa/, Mobile Operators [R&D department] who are taking over the Internet market in emerging market etc ..)  through an effective communication. That is a critical aspect of attracting people! Engineers and technologists from emerging markets face so much day to day basic challenges in doing their work that asking them to naturally spare time to read and contribute to lists where hundreds of mails are send in an hour with cross references to other hundreds of document is hard. Fellowship to roughly 30 people every year should not be the only direction too look at, the issue have to be addressed holistically so to have an effective result.

Thanks.

- a.

On 2013-09-28, at 23:28 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I am attaching a draft which discusses about attracting people from emerging regions into the IETF.  There is a proposal in Section 3 about the most effective way to contribute to the IETF.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy<draft-ddt-fellowship-00.txt>_______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:55:12 -0700

Hi Adiel,

Thanks for the feedback.

At 03:19 30-09-2013, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
>1. I will suggest that that the draft goes beyond ISOC fellowship 
>program and set a framework for any existing of future program that 
>aim at improving participation and contribution from emerging 
>economies. In addition, I see two distinct goals: One being to 
>attract people, and the other one to make their participation 
>sustainable/effective. Reading the draft I have the impression that 
>it mainly addresses the latest aspect which is "sustaining 
>participation from emerging countries". Maybe a different draft will 
>be needed to address more effectively the "attracting" aspect.

I agree with the suggestion to have a document that sets a framework 
for any existing or future programs that aim at improving 
participation and contribution from emerging economies.  It would 
require a lot of effort and the collaboration of several 
organisations to draw up a framework which is workable.

I highlight the comment about goals:

   (i)  one being to attract people

   (ii) make their participation sustainable/effective

The draft tries to address (ii), i.e. make the participation from 
emerging countries effective and sustainable.  The first goal (i) is 
one which could be covered through outreach.  I left out the outreach 
part from the draft.  I have some very rough ideas for (i).  In my 
opinion it is unlikely that they would bring any results without 
money and even then I am not sure whether the results will be 
considered as significant.

>2. Will it not be be more accurate to use "countries", "markets" or 
>"economies" instead of region? In my view it could be 
>hard/subjective to define an homogeneous geographic region as an emerging one.

Yes (to the last sentence).

The term "emerging regions" is used in the IETF.  I could not find a 
better one for the draft.  Although "countries", "markets" or 
"economies" are more accurate they might not fit into goal (ii) or 
end up causing a disincentive to IETF Contributions.

>3. When talking about "attracting" people I think the critical 
>aspect is to make the participation appealing to them, meaning 
>nurturing their interest for Open standard in general and IETF work in
>  particular. So, in the document while I believe that some of the 
> issues are well identified, the
>  proposed solutions are incomplete and lack a deeper analysis of 
> the reason behind the issues. For
>  instance when you set as requirement that candidate must have to 
> participate to IETF work for 6 at least months, I doubt this can 
> happen naturally if there is no incentive and hand holding to get 
> them to that stage. One real issue we have to circumvent here is 
> the fact that there is no (not

I have reached out to the IETF Community to request feedback.  In my 
humble opinion a deeper analysis takes the work beyond what is 
achievable as a volunteer effort.

>  yet) vibrant innovation industry in these economies which  could 
> nurture engineers/technologists interest for standards in general 
> and Open Standards in this particular context. So we need to find a 
> sustainable way to create the interest first (which can be part of 
> any fellowship process) and find probable interested people where 
> they are (universities/technology school, innovation hubs that are 
> flourishing all over emerging countries, 
> http://www.ihub.co.ke/blog/2013/05/comparative-study-on-innovation-hubs-across-africa/, 
> Mobile Operators [R&D department] who are taking over the Internet 
> market in emerging market etc ..)  through an effective 
> communication. That is a critical
>  aspect of attracting people! Engineers and technologists from 
> emerging markets face so much day to day basic challenges in doing 
> their work that asking them to naturally spare time to read and 
> contribute to lists where hundreds of mails are send in an hour 
> with cross references to other hundreds of document is hard. 
> Fellowship to roughly 30 people every year should not be the only 
> direction too look at, the issue have to be addressed holistically 
> so to have an effective result.

Some of the above might fit in the framework suggested at the 
beginning of the message or as part of outreach.  There was another 
thread on the mailing list where it was mentioned that some of the 
work done at universities do not fit within the IETF.

I agree that engineers from emerging markets face so much day to day 
basic challenges and that asking them to spare time to reach the 
mailing lists is hard.  It has been mentioned that the IETF does its 
work through its mailing list.  I personally do not think that it 
would be a good idea to suggest changing that without the support of 
the IETF Community.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:59:11 -0700

SM,

On 9/29/2013 11:39 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Please note that the draft is not intended as criticism.

OK, but that was not clear to me.  Again, I think the issue is that

    1) the existing 'goals' statement:

doesn't state how it relates to the existing effort, and, therefore, how 
any recommendations you make relate to existing efforts.

    2) Some of the language in the document appears to cite deficiencies 
in the existing effort or, at least, to suggest additional efforts.

I suspect that the solution to this is simply to add some text to the 
Introduction, so that it links your draft to existing work, and then to 
add text to different sections that distinguish "summary" from "issues" 
(or the like) from "suggestions" (or the like).

And in case it isn't already clear, I'm not commenting on the substance 
of your document, beyond my original statement that it looks like it can 
be helpful.  Here I'm only suggesting things that might make the 
document more clear.

>  I am okay with
> removing any text which might be viewed as criticism.  I don't have a
> lot of material to work from.  As such it is difficult to provide
> factual descriptions of what is currently done, problems, etc.

Whether you are criticizing or not, this sounds like something that 
could use improvement.

>> different.  (I think I can derive the answer from the body of the
>> draft, but the Introduction should say it explicitly.)
>

Yes, but the /title/ of Section 2 is "Issues", which is quite a generic 
label.

Hmmm.   Perhaps it would help to separate a summary of the /current/ 
ISOC work -- goals and operation -- from discussion of concerns about it 
"IETF-related Issues with the Current ISOC Fellowship Program", and then 
separate discussion of proposals for changes or additions.

> to the Introduction section and mention the:

Might help.

> into the Introduction Section too?

Well, it might be useful, but what it needs is something that 
establishes the 'deficiency'.  That is, the statement about what is 
effective is interesting only when there is some text that notes how the 
current activity is not sufficient for this.  For example, perhaps 
something like:

      The current program does create an initial, face-to-face contact 
for some new participants.  However long-term benefit requires helping 
these participants to engage in the full range of IETF interactions. The 
most effective way to contribute to the IETF is through active 
participation and by reviewing and commenting about working group drafts.

If the above text works, that's fine, but I really only intend it as an 
example of the style of text that would help to explain what you are 
saying is needed, a bit more fully.

> with little participation from Africa and South America, for
> instance."

Basically, that establishes the original issue, namely 
under-participation by some regions.  However I believe your draft goes 
beyond this to look for ways to improve upon the existing effort to 
respond to this lack of participation, by trying to suggest additional 
efforts that will generate more complete and longer-term participation.

> "For instance, what does networking need in South America or Africa,
> two areas that have a growing attendance in the IETF but are not yet
> so visible in the RFC publication graph?" >
> Should the draft mention "active participation" as the result the IETF
> would like to have or should it mention RFC publication as the result?

Hmmm.  process vs. product.  My own reaction is that "active 
participation" is what's important here, or perhaps "on-going active 
participation", just to emphasize the longer-term goal.

d/

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:12:34 +0100

The draft states some of my interests and my past advise to add regions
into IETF, and that many participants of other regions are having
difficulties to work in IETF. I think the solutions in the draft need
additions or recommendations to IETF managements. IMHO, the draft should
consider how the management/Current-Practice should form to encourage such
aim.

AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:26:41 +0100

> any recommendations you make relate to existing efforts.

I agree to clarify this in the draft, and to give recommendations for
better procedures.

>
>    2) Some of the language in the document appears to cite deficiencies in
> the existing effort or, at least, to suggest additional efforts.
>

I think it will be additional practices not efforts, we need efforts from
participants of ALL regions and we need more procedures that help that
goal. This draft is one effort and hopefully it becomes practice.

> Whether you are criticizing or not, this sounds like something that could
> use improvement.

I think it is not difficult to describe work/administrative
issues/facts/problems which lack diversity, having regions encouraged is
the aim of any clarification so we know why we were not having diversity in
a natural ways, in future we may not need any procedures because we become
more use to it and it solves the IETF culture to be more open.

> I like the goal, but it is not clear, the document is it procedure or
informational, it seems like information or recommendation, but why not
providing clear recommendations as one objective.

AB

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:58:22 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 10:59 30-09-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>doesn't state how it relates to the existing effort, and, therefore, 
>how any recommendations you make relate to existing efforts.

The sentence before that is:

   "There is already an ISOC Fellowship programme to the IETF for
    participants from emerging regions."

The draft tries to start from the existing programme instead of 
creating something new.  Note that the ISOC fellowship was listed by 
the Diversity Design Team in one of the initiatives it identified.

The last sentence (quoted in your message) is about attracting 
contributors from emerging regions into the IETF instead of 
attracting them to the IETF.  Maybe "attracting" is not the correct 
word here.  I would say that the draft "attempts to address the 
challenge of attracting people from emerging regions".

I did a few changes to the draft based on your feedback (thanks again 
for that).  The title of Section 2 is:

   "Existing support for participants from emerging regions"

The draft looks at the programme as an existing effort.  It then 
lists the goals of the programme and the selection criteria.  Based 
on your previous suggestions, I added references.

>    2) Some of the language in the document appears to cite 
> deficiencies in the existing effort or, at least, to suggest 
> additional efforts.

Ok.  I'll comment below.

>I suspect that the solution to this is simply to add some text to 
>the Introduction, so that it links your draft to existing work, and 
>then to add text to different sections that distinguish "summary" 
>from "issues" (or the like) from "suggestions" (or the like).

Could you please review this again in the next version of the draft?

>And in case it isn't already clear, I'm not commenting on the 
>substance of your document, beyond my original statement that it 
>looks like it can be helpful.  Here I'm only suggesting things that 
>might make the document more clear.

I understood. :-)

Ok.

>Yes, but the /title/ of Section 2 is "Issues", which is quite a generic label.

Yes.

What if I use "Expectations of the IETF"?

>ISOC work -- goals and operation -- from discussion of concerns 
>about it "IETF-related Issues with the Current ISOC Fellowship 
>Program", and then separate discussion of proposals for changes or additions.

I could also use "IETF-related Issues with the Current ISOC 
Fellowship Program".  I have a preference for expectations (see above).

The draft does not get into current ISOC work and operation.  I don't 
have much information about that to be able to add text to the draft.

>effective is interesting only when there is some text that notes how 
>the current activity is not sufficient for this.  For example, 
>perhaps something like:
>
>      The current program does create an initial, face-to-face 
> contact for some new participants.  However long-term benefit 
> requires helping these participants to engage in the full range of 
> IETF interactions. The most effective way to contribute to the IETF 
> is through active participation and by reviewing and commenting 
> about working group drafts.
>
>If the above text works, that's fine, but I really only intend it as 
>an example of the style of text that would help to explain what you 
>are saying is needed, a bit more fully.

I like your text.  I did some minor changes.  Here's the second 
paragraph of the Introduction section:

   Section 2 lists the objectives of the existing ISOC Fellowship programme
   and the selection criteria.  The current programme does help new
   participants to establish an initial face-to-face contact.  However,
   long-term benefit requires helping these participants to engage in the
   full range of IETF interactions.  The most effective way to contribute
   to the IETF is through on-going active participation and by reviewing
   and commenting about working group drafts.  There are suggestions in
   Section 4 to align the ISOC Fellowship programme with the expectations
   of the IETF by having a selection criteria that encourages active
   IETF participation, and by having an evaluation panel with the
   expertise to evaluate IETF contributions.

>under-participation by some regions.  However I believe your draft 
>goes beyond this to look for ways to improve upon the existing 
>effort to respond to this lack of participation, by trying to 
>suggest additional efforts that will generate more complete and 
>longer-term participation.

Yes.

>participation", just to emphasize the longer-term goal.

I added "on-going".  I agree that on-going active participation is 
what's important here.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:47:09 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 11:12 30-09-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>The draft states some of my interests and my past advise to add 
>regions into IETF, and that many participants of other regions are 
>having difficulties to work in IETF. I think the solutions in the 
>draft need additions or recommendations to IETF managements. IMHO, 
>the draft should consider how the management/Current-Practice should 
>form to encourage such aim.

I volunteered for only part of one of the initiatives.  My 
understanding is that part does not include how the IETF "management 
should form".  The draft does not provide solutions.

At 11:26 30-09-2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>I like the goal, but it is not clear, the document is it procedure 
>or informational, it seems like information or recommendation, but 
>why not providing clear recommendations as one objective.

The draft makes suggestions.  I don't know the answer for the above.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 01:31:27 -0400

Hi SM,
  I went through the draft and it looks good. Some comments.

One meta issue: I would also like the draft to include people from
"developed" regions who would not ordinarily have the means to attend an
IETF meeting. These folks are usually left out from the outreach
programs and would be worth evaluating as well.

Section 2:

Split into two sections/subsections: One describing the current
program(s) and the other describing the issues. I like Dave's idea to
point to the original programs as well.

Consider adding the ANRP here as one of the current programs as it is
certainly open to participants from emerging regions

Section 3:

Consider removing the last criterion as I explained above.

Section 4:

I think there should be a distinction between who nominates and who
evaluates. My view is that the WG chairs should nominate and and an
evaluation panel could be appointed each year (like the ANRP selection
committee). Even though interested ADs could participate, I am not a big
fan of adding more mandatory work to the already difficult IESG job.

Thanks
Suresh