As we discussed in the plenary session at IETF 105 in Montréal, some community members have suggested moving document last-call discussions onto a dedicated "last-call" mailing list, and off of the general <ietf@xxxxxxxx> list. The latter is a high-volume list with a lot of varied discussion, and some think that it would be useful to separate the general discussion from the last-call discussion, to allow people to choose which discussions (or both) to follow. In the IETF 105 plenary, support was expressed for that separation. The IESG agrees, and wants to try an experiment to that end. We propose to create <last-call@xxxxxxxx> and to direct last-call comments and discussions there (the last-call announcements would still go to <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>, with "reply-to" set to the new list). That list would be monitored by volunteers recruited by the IETF Chair, and digressions would be nudged back to <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, while we would ask people having last-call discussions on this list to please move them to the new list. We would get the tools team involved so that the distribution lists for directorate and review-team reviews would be updated appropriately. Our plan is to create the new list and pre-subscribe everyone who is subscribed to <ietf@xxxxxxxx> at that time. Of course, anyone could unsubscribe to either or both lists immediately or later, but we think that doing it this way would minimize the likelihood that people would miss important stuff because of the move, and folks can choose what they prefer from there. After six months, we would do an initial evaluation, including getting feedback from the community, to see how the experiment is working. If it seems worth continuing we would do so, and at a point that the community decides that the experiment is a success (should it so decide), we would start an update to BCP 45 to formally move the location for last-call discussions, and we would update the 2007 IESG Statement on Last Call Guidance. We invite comments, here, on this plan, by the end of September. As I say above, we've heard support from the community for the general idea, and we'd like to make sure this direction is what the community wants. Barry, for the IESG
