Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 08 June 2016 16:10 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 6737C12D6A1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id emrneMSfA15K for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41BA112D5C3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1bAg2r-0006g4-9F; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 12:09:29 -0400
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 12:09:24 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective
Message-ID: <BC8901259714860E4662940C@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <61709A1A-5456-4A39-87DE-D5D25A6968E1@consulintel.es>
References: <20160608135632.20063.81792.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <256CE0D6-1A2A-459A-9800-FAF1960EDD09@consulintel.es> <CA+9kkMCGO+hxPjEDD9YVJr5QAHcFDotHyCRxPo7k9t11NegnAA@mail.gmail.com> <61709A1A-5456-4A39-87DE-D5D25A6968E1@consulintel.es>
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
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KdO8QIU-PABECepiu_9sEXmLh-Y>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:10:24 -0000
--On Wednesday, June 08, 2016 17:17 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote: > But we don't care they don't want it. We should try and > make it present in our social, plenary, etc. > > As I said before, there is nothing to hide. This debate has > been public all the time. Jordi, I tend to agree with at least the general direction of Yoav's comments. We need to appreciate what attention to the issues and these conversations have accomplished already, e.g., the decisions vetting future sites, commitments to more transparency of the process, and generally increased community sensitivity to the issues.. Given that the IAOC has decided that we should do IETF 100 in Singapore, the IETF should go there and concentrate on getting work done, not on getting in the face of the local government. If, as individuals, we don't like the IAOC decision or feel that going to Singapore is just too dangerous or uncomfortable (for whatever reason), we should vote with our feet and stay away. That is not only (at least IMO) the right ethical move, but the budget hit might help the IAOC remain focused for the long term and a sufficient spending hit relative to whatever was expected actually is the sort of thing I think the Singapore government is likely to notice. best, john
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Margaret Cullen
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Masataka Ohta
- IETF 100, IAOC perspective IAOC Chair
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Ted Hardie
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Robin Wilton
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Jakob Heitz
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective John Levine
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, IAOC perspective Ted Lemon
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Tim Chown
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Harald Alvestrand
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Eliot Lear
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Michael StJohns
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Yoav Nir
- Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective] Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Melinda Shore
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Eliot Lear
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… lloyd.wood
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Meeting discussions (was: IETF 100, IAOC perspect… S Moonesamy
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Lloyd Wood
- Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspective Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Andrew Newton
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Michael StJohns
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Donald Eastlake
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Melinda Shore
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Andrew Allen
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John Leslie
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Lloyd Wood
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Jari Arkko
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John C Klensin
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… John C Klensin
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Randy Bush
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: Value and respect [Re: IETF 100, IAOC perspec… Masataka Ohta