AI Preferences
charter-ietf-aipref-01

Yes

Erik Kline
Orie Steele
(Francesca Palombini)
(Zaheduzzaman Sarker)

No Objection

Éric Vyncke
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw
(John Scudder)
(Murray Kucherawy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Erik Kline
Yes
Orie Steele
Yes
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2024-12-02 for -00-00) Sent 
Just some minor comments (hence preventing a strong YES):

Even if "AI" is a well-known acronym, suggest to use "Artificial Intelligence" at least in the charter text (and possibly in the WG name).

`AI model development, deployment, and use`, while I understand the "development" part (suggest using "training" ?), I wonder what is meant here about "deployment, use".

`associating those preferences to content in IETF-defined protocols` it took me a while to parse the sentence correctly as I first read it as "content of the IETF-defined protocols". It may be my French bias that cause this misread of mine.

`header fields."` suggest removing the extra "

`IPTC and PLUS` as I am probably not the only one not aware of these groups/SDO, suggest expanding the acronyms.

`Liaisons are intended to inform external bodies ` seems to indicate a one-way communication from IETF to other bodies and not listening to their feedback/requirements
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Comment (2024-12-04 for -00-00) Sent 
I have some concerns on the word "preferences" not being what some people want it to mean (eg "disallow")
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2024-12-04 for -00-00) Sent 
“A means of attaching or associating those preferences to content in IETF-defined protocols and formats, including but not limited to using Well-Known URIs (RFC 8615), Robots Exclusion Protocol (RFC 9309), and HTTP response header fields."
A method for reconciling multiple expressions of preferences.”

There are editorial or formatting issues. There is an extra quote mark after header field. The “A method for reconciling …” sentence doesn’t flow.

“A standard track protocol specification to associate the expressed AI-related preferences to the IESG for publication”

Given the vagueness of the text does this milestone imply that exactly one PS protocol specification will be produced? 

What protocols or formats will it cover?
Francesca Palombini Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2024-12-05 for -00-00) Not sent 
Agreed with Roman on formatting issues.
Zaheduzzaman Sarker Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-00) Not sent 

                            

                        
                    

                
            
        
            
                
            
                
            
                
            
                
            
                
            
                
                    

                        

                            John Scudder Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (for -00-01)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Not sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Murray Kucherawy Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (for -00-00)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Not sent