IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 11 August 2012 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F61A21F8484; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fnlv0yiCoJAp; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55EA21F847C; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1T0FDF-0007EZ-GB; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:10:57 -0400
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:16:58 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Message-ID: <C01C22690CE178AF8C2E52F7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjL=tnYrtmHkV+=+VeOCo+1PjAu+pW0LnUyHYhVX_pPZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DF4B6630-8BD1-4BFF-B872-99619B06FCF2@ietf.org> <CAMm+Lwio8=EyW-=LZE8BA4=6N=H4f7a1Nycg25LxB920ceZ6JA@mail.gmail.com> <1117B161-0454-4570-96BF-4045E4DB62A8@standardstrack.com> <276B7D303A96E840D2F95107@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAMm+LwjL=tnYrtmHkV+=+VeOCo+1PjAu+pW0LnUyHYhVX_pPZA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:17:14 -0000

--On Saturday, August 11, 2012 12:51 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
<hallam@gmail.com> wrote:

>...
> But do not discount the possibility that inducing the US to
> withdraw is the objective of certain parties in this little
> exercise.

Given the fraction of the ITU budget and the even larger
fraction of the T-Sector budget that come from the US and
US-based Sector Members, that would be fairly irrational
behavior for those who wanted to preserve a healthy and
well-staffed ITU.  On the other hand, irrational behavior would
be nothing new in this area so I can't disagree with the
possibility.

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email