IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [93attendees] I was wondering...

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Fri, 24 July 2015 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: 93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1F01A8854 for <93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u1fInIwqfbpc for <93attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com (mailuogwhop.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C8961A87E9 for <93attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.35]) by mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t6O9ELor017844 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:14:28 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com t6O9ELor017844
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1437729268; bh=buaCyaxl9nxQRN+FJ7iewh22l/Y=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=JW0zmdnSxp/DDibAP7vPeh5KLBZcgMmheeWkixzYuj9YebGgQXxsLCTNK2uvQbxQQ FeR0ioUfZQqoGdOlGLYKwFe7dw/ptfYqJjzW6489x4ouP/JNrJ7tUrdoIA8eGIlD81 /AFbcTi5qJDqTaeSldoYOxYrPaxiLlgu6drbhpjw=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd02.lss.emc.com t6O9ELor017844
Received: from mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.19]) by maildlpprd03.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:14:06 -0400
Received: from mxhub21.corp.emc.com (mxhub21.corp.emc.com [128.222.70.133]) by mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id t6O9E7BZ020186 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:14:07 -0400
Received: from MXHUB103.corp.emc.com (10.253.50.16) by mxhub21.corp.emc.com (128.222.70.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:14:06 -0400
Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.107]) by MXHUB103.corp.emc.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:14:07 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "93attendees@ietf.org" <93attendees@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [93attendees] I was wondering...
Thread-Index: AQHQxetAl1Og/DR82kuPJBgjJ0bjNJ3qkhgAgAAD8oCAAAJigP//vXAQ
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:14:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493614014D12@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
References: <roeehnxgoypgq14hcab6bxgt.1437726661503@email.android.com> <D1D7C653.A348C%brian.rosen@neustar.biz> <D1D7D92E.25550A%Jonne.soininen@nsn.com> <55B2010D.70607@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55B2010D.70607@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.76.189.104]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: DLM_1, public
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/93attendees/_DSCI_htQa_76mAfXclmrFdJuoY>
Subject: Re: [93attendees] I was wondering...
X-BeenThere: 93attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list of IETF 93 attendees that have opted in on this list. " <93attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/93attendees>, <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/93attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:93attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/93attendees>, <mailto:93attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:14:32 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 93attendees [mailto:93attendees-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
> Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 5:11 AM

> 
> Hi Jonne,
> 
> On 24/07/2015 21:02, Soininen, Jonne (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > On 24/07/15 11:47, "93attendees on behalf of ext Rosen, Brian"
> > <93attendees-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz> wrote:
> >
> >> There is a discussion on this over on Facebook.
> >>
> >> I¹ll repeat my message on this:
> >> I expressed my dismay to the secretariat, who were very unhappy about the
> >> situation.  The company employing these women was associated with our
> >> host, cz.nic.  This company was told by the secretariat, multiple times,
> >> that it would not be a good idea to have the women at the event.  The
> >> secretariat did not feel that they could outright forbid them to.
> >
> > It seems that this a case where IETF, secretariat or anybody associated to
> > the IETF has not done anything wrong. The proper concerns have be taken up
> > with the company doing this before the meeting. So, this is really just
> > shame on the company itself and should be concerned as very poor judgement
> > from their part.
> 
> That's true, but it suggests to me that there should be written terms
> and conditions for the participating companies that make it clear that
> this sort of thing is unacceptable, and give the Secretariat the power
> to throw them out (in real time if necessary).

+1

Thanks,
--David

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email