1. You need a bigger room for talks. The session on Open Source was over subscribed to say the least. I just walked away. 2. We need to be more accommodating to public policy folks and National Regulatory Authorities. Maybe ISOC needs to work on that. Some of us have tried we get nowhere. We had a charming incident in some of the RAI WG¹s last week. RAI had three distinct sessions dealing with highly sensitive public policy problems with SIP. DISPATCH w/CNIT, the MODERN bof and STIR. Guess who shows up. https://consumersunion.org/end-robocalls Needless to say they were met with open arms if not some polite bemusement and they collected a pile of contacts etc including mine. The CU folks told us that this is the NUMBER 1 issue their members complain about. Yes it is our problem because we define SIP. I can speak with some authority that the NRA's are very very concerned about a lot of protocol issues re real time communications and a whole lot more like Net Neutrality. We (ISOC?) are not doing the proper outreach. We are not being helpful. ? Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting LLC Chairman of the Board SIP Forum www.shockey.us www.sipforum.org richard<at>shockey.us Skype-Linkedin-Facebook rshockey101 PSTN +1 703-593-2683 On 3/30/15, 4:40 PM, "IETF Chair" <chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >Thank you all for a wonderful meeting. I wanted to thank all the sponsors >and participants, and our host Google for their support. And the >wonderful social event. Well done, you all! > >Here are some thoughts from me and Dan York, as the meeting ended: >https://www.youtube.com/embed/R2G5eLkX1BM > >What are your thoughts? What were the important things coming out of the >meeting for you? What can we do better next time? Are there new things >that we should start to work on? > >Jari Arkko, IETF Chair >