IDentity Enabled Networks
charter-ietf-ideas-00-06

I agree with Kathleen's evaluation and second her proposal to have additional privacy-focused discussions around the charter language prior to moving forward.

I do not think this group is ready to be chartered at this time given the significant objections from the community. 

There seem to be two key problems with the work as proposed:

(1) The work is insufficiently motivated. The claims about the need for the mapping system and the identity management system envisioned here do not appear to be backed up by those who have developed and deployed ID/LOC separation protocols. Nor do there seem to be compelling arguments that the framework that this proposed WG would produce would be the motivator for further interoperable deployments.

(2) The work proposed here seems as if it would have a substantial intrinsic impact on user privacy if widely deployed. In cases like these, I don't believe it's sufficient to say that the WG will analyze the situation and propose mitigations; the work proposal itself needs to explain how the design of the infrastructure envisioned is going to mitigate what seem like obvious attacks on privacy that the proposed designs open up.

I think further discussions of this work (in private, on the list, at a bar in Singapore, or at a potential future BoF) would need to resolve both of the above issues in order to address concerns raised by the community.

At this point in time, I believe the community should meet in Singapore to discuss IDEAS.
Whether this is a BoF or WG, I guess that same points would be on the table.
So use the BoF time. 
The BoF objectives could be:
1. What are the privacy issues? 
2. If we need to address those, how? (no need for the full solution, but potential tracks)
3. Based on 1 and 2, should we charter IDEAS? 
4. If yes, work on the charter text

As other ADs have noted, I don't think this group is ready to be chartered considering
the on-going community discussion/concerns raised and the on-going discussion
among the proponents on what they want to do.

I agree with Kathleen's block.

In addition, based on the discussion on the IETF list, I do not believe there is consensus to charter this WG.

I think there should be another BoF to discuss the privacy aspects and let the community have a chance to voice opinions and fully hash this out.  I suspect we'll see appeals (rightfully so) if that does not happen.