Re: Sergeant-at-Armss and New proposal/New SOW comment period

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

Keith Moore wrote:

> I'm also getting the impression that there need to be explicit 
> constraints on the SAA, and also some kind of transparency and 
> accountability, to keep the SAA from having a chilling effect on 
> discussion of matters relevant to IETF - technical protocol
> standards, publication of such standards, and the running of the
> organization itself.

I'm afraid the current situation is already too bad for
people not to be able to argue against SAAs.

Below is a copy of part of mail from shyam bandyopadhyay
<[e-mail]> sent on August 21th to several people
including me and CCed to several lists including IETF list:

Subject: Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
 > Benjamin Kaduk has said:
 >
 >> Suresh also requested, as responsible Area Director, that you direct
 >> technical discussions on this topic to the 6man mailing list.  Why  
do you
 >> feel it is appropriate to cross-post to two additional very broad forums
 >> despite the existence of a more topical forum?
 >
 > As I had said earlier, Fred Baker had suggested to send this
 > as a proposal to the IRTF list, Robert Moskowoitz
 > suggested to move it to the IETF mailing list.
 > Also, I wanted this topic to be discussed within a broader circle
 > as people involved with the 6man list will be influenced with the
 > thought process that they are involved in, but others will look
 > at it from a neutral point of view.
 >
 > I do apologies to everyone if this happens to be a wastage of time.

though I can't find it in IETF ML archive. But, as it was sent to
this list, it is not a problem to send part of it here again.

						Masataka Ohta