Re: Transparency of IAOC

SM <> Tue, 12 April 2016 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ECF312DB50 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=Vf763zrf; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=AogmX2oi
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C1OYEOzXPl2w for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD5612DA1B for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3CK6xKb028470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1460491626; x=1460578026; bh=54MzQhrWZJ+ktX04xGbjtfzi/l0D34G5OFOjjenYFac=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Vf763zrf9dfyd2cCzSigt8SXCLiqsoETjEHhfSCnAnD4SHb9XumVNR616bU1ZON+i 9HzfltLpmgM/6mrui0TKsz/cqtdnXjvfm2Q5aUKmuwpXC6WDiy2RThg+xYbTBVG//t /o3Qqc1cK12lkaWw4cWq8TcLQKBQj6DTRRYYDCrA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1460491626; x=1460578026;; bh=54MzQhrWZJ+ktX04xGbjtfzi/l0D34G5OFOjjenYFac=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=AogmX2oieBM6iYKR6aWFKzkFDMUDTrnvaG5QjoprEBP0RWl9HYIocokBUH0FeEydi ignvBzoVTlf3cB4KHDirCyqVT9ihrjJzCD4puNnnCm+8zzMvi3YK2ohrER5EImuobK 0VvWtAiphtuywnNOkLGg3DtX8e9x0w/UO/PpeQ1g=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:00:20 -0700
To: Dave Crocker <>,
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Transparency of IAOC
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 20:07:13 -0000

Hi Dave,

I mentioned that I'll reply to the questions which you asked during 
our discussion.  The arguments for transparency is that one does not 
have to rely on gossip or have to assess the level of honesty of a 
person providing the information to understand the rationale for a 
decision.  One argument against transparency is that not all 
information can be made public.

The latest minutes of the IESG are at 
I don't know whether there was community pressure for any IETF 
participant to be able to join an IESG Teleconference.  The option is 
there though.  Is the IESG more open than five years back?  Yes.

Is it appropriate to ask questions to the IAOC?  I don't see people 
who have been part of the "leadership" doing that.  Maybe, it will be 
viewed as politically incorrect and it is not good for a person's 
IETF career.  In other words, it is a matter of perception.