Re: USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toerless, Joe,
At 03:56 PM 24-07-2020, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>This effort of language change if it is then adopted officially in IETF or RFC
>editor will undoubtedly reconfirm the perception if not reality that the IETF
>is a strongly USA dominated institution:
>
>- IETF chair lives in USA works for USA company
>- 12 of 14 IESG members live in the USA and/or work for USA companies.
>- 10 out of 13 IAB members live in the USA and/or work for USA companies.
>- Anybody want to take a bet what percentage of WG chairs live in the
>   USA and/or work for a USA company ?
>- Any of the other leadership roles ?
>
>While in the past USA leadership was seen as very positive, unfortunately this
>has changed around the world, and this effort has good chances to also be
>seen in that light:
>
>In this case, we have a situation where (if i analyze it correctly) not even
>the long-term IETF community, but one from outside the IETF brings 
>this USA centric
>social issue into the IETF, and the USA centric active IETF 
>community is directly
>jumping on this boat because they confuse whatever might be good for their
>countries community to be equally good for the supposedly much larger
>and supposedly much more diverse and inclusive global IETF 
>community. To me, this
>is a sign of even stronger USA influence than anything technical we 
>had so far.

The Spanish words for the concept which was discussed in several 
venues is similar to the English words.  I would have to spend more 
time on that topic to understand it.

The main part of Toerless' message is about whether the U.S. social 
issues which have influenced the debate about some words.  It is 
difficult to determine whether the fact that 85% of IESG members have 
U.S. ties has anything to do with the IESG Statement.

It is strange that the traditional Thursday censorship index was 
discontinued. The majority of persons posting to this mailing list 
have U.S. ties.  The reality is that it is that majority which 
influences the decision(s).  It is probably similar for the related 
debate {1] on the Human Rights Protocol Considerations mailing list.

One of the points made was whether a solution which Country X 
considers as good is equality good for other countries.  Do all those 
countries have the same culture?  Would Country X be putting the 
interests of the other country ahead of its own interests?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/9E7uZeAD53eQ2qOPgJfSY3LHnDE/