Re: Concerns about Singapore

Stephen Farrell <> Mon, 11 April 2016 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A6F212EB8B for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 03:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.297
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.297 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id olT83NkdKOva for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 03:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E3DA12EB88 for <>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 03:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50AFEBE2F; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:23:34 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vvuNmJB6qSVF; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:23:33 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C49CBDF9; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:23:31 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1460370211; bh=PDBGIDrK/2p0VPhfI/c1u87XYLjQ0SfAoiAo1CKjcQs=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=xoSqGn3S60xt46Z8UztGl00Ag/r2rbYLhLpWyX4a+vgHat3jO/mTf1fYbWBplnC7Z T1lGfPCwQ1JqaASMYNf49GJC7SC8zKYwNELdnfAXcrOLaZuteniYbBJCZyRhiMj2Y1 bebZ/VH1rJdJJ1fvDVUireWr2dC/bmvUOqkmpK1E=
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Andrew Allen <>, Vinayak Hegde <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:23:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms030107030602040609070504"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:23:46 -0000

On 11/04/16 09:05, Andrew Allen wrote:
> Debates over whether a location is politically or morally acceptable
> will only distract from the mission of the IETF and likely divide the
> community rather than help in making progress towards forming
> consensus on the future development of the internet.

I almost but don't agree with the above. The danger of such debates
dividing folks and being a barrier to progress is real. OTOH, there
are also dangers in the lack of such debate, or if the debate is post
facto, as happened in this case.

I think the lesson the IAOC ought learn here is to switch to a
default-open mode of operation where only those things that really
need to be kept confidential are kept confidential. (Note that I
don't only mean for f2f meeting arrangements but for all of what the
IAOC do.) That will require them (or someone) to go figure out (with
the community) which kinds of things really do need to be kept
confidential, and which can be done openly, in the normal IETF way.

I'd be fine if the IAOC announced that they will be doing the above
but also said we weren't going to work out the details until after
they have figured out whatever it is they end up doing about IETF-100.