Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral
jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Mon, 21 October 2013 13:35 UTC
Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 5491F11E837F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 niOjVNZj3YZt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1071411E8518 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 4230D18C0F6; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:34:43 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral
Message-Id: <20131021133443.4230D18C0F6@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:34:43 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:35:15 -0000
> From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> > I think his slides do miss some essential points For me, the biggest one is regarding non-US people (whether you measure 'US' by citizenship, or residence) working for US-'based' multi-nationals. (That too is a complex question, as their country of incorporation may not be where their main nexus us, although for many tech companies it is.) He counted such people as 'US', but I think that's a simple gloss on a more complex reality. And of course it goes both ways - what about, e.g. US citizens working for a non-US company? What box do they go in? If you go by the company's country, for US companies (even if the personnel are non-US citizens, residing in their native country), would the same rule apply to non-US companies? Actually, probably a bigger issue than national bias is the dominance of vendors (who can afford to send personnel), versus users. Noel
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral John C Klensin
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Noel Chiappa
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Dave Crocker
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Hannes Tschofenig
- Internet standardisation remains unilateral Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Jari Arkko
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Jelte Jansen
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Jorge Amodio
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Joe Abley
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral John Day
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral John Day
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Dave Crocker
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Lixia Zhang
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Dave Crocker
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Michel Py
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral John C Klensin
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Martin Vigoureux
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Måns Nilsson
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral John Day
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Michel Py
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Mark Nottingham
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral John Day
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral SM
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Jukka Ruohonen
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Roger Jørgensen
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Christian de Larrinaga
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral John Day
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Randy Presuhn
- RE: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Michel Py
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral John Day