Hi, At the outset of this process, I was quite simply excited by the prospect of a group of talented codec researchers joining forces to push the limits of their art, with a shared aim of producing the next generation of codecs, tailored to suit modern transports, and to the needs of a broader range of application developers, for whom wide accessibility and interoperability are of paramount importance. The work on this is already developing well. But as has been noted many times by both the proponents and opponents of forming this group, we will have a far superior outcome on the whole if the collective insights of these people are combined into a minimal number of codecs that meet the identified goals, than we would have if each group were to simply continue producing their own work separately as we have been seeing to date. (ironically, that may be the only thing certain to occur if this proposed group does not ultimately form somewhere) Real-time audio communication, today, is still a horribly fragmented and thoroughly monopolised service. But the internet routes around damage so it is said, and I have been rather delighted to observe that very process in action here already. There are a lot of people here now who want that to end. We've already seen some interesting (and perhaps to some, unexpected) players ante in to take part in the first round. I doubt I'd be going far out on a limb to suggest there will be others, if this first round looks like fun and achieves some notable results. Which so far, I have no reason to doubt it will. As to the question of whether to form this group under the auspices of the IETF, we've seen a lot of recurring emphasis put upon which SDO should have the first claim to hosting it, or some special veto on what it produces. To my eyes, that sort of ownership angst seems off the mark. The organisation that hosts it and may finally proclaim it gold, is by far secondary to the set of working processes that the active participants agree upon to resolve their differences and cement their agreements. That is what will ultimately decide whether this project succeeds or fails at its stated goals. All of these people could produce quality codecs on their own. They've already proven that point so it's not in question. The interesting question is what can they do if given just a few simple rules for working together. It seems quite clear at this stage, that the people who want this work to begin in earnest _today_, have self-selected on the IETF process. And despite the enormous elephant in the room, that seems to already be a working choice. I fully endorse the creation of this WG, with a charter that gives it sufficient freedom to refine its goals, by the consensus of the group, as ever better understanding of the problems is gained and shared. A broad range of talents are already assembled and professing their commitment to its success, and I'd certainly like to see what they can in fact prove if given the umbrella group of their choice. By choosing the IETF, they're offering me a voice to help shape that work, based on Real Things I Know. And/or have the code to demonstrate. On about as reasonable and non-discriminating terms as I could ever likely hope for. Offers you can't refuse don't get much better than that. Let's do this! Ron _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf