IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 E386C12D9B5; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 7dVymG023OPO; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEBC512D729; Thu, 26 May 2016 13:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465392134F; Thu, 26 May 2016 16:31:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 26 May 2016 16:31:20 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=+M4ynWc+j7pOr/d d3v5+COhk3LI=; b=T1E2VbjCYKpAKBPZmcJIzAJKEInYJ6Ls1VbPDSqS2g6W62I W0NtsIp/cvYcnkYIJwJsBKxnJaFAtmhBGwxlzw3HjWmL1LziEUgQv8ZJ89AzAe/m qAquhfd+dSSQOTbl4aneW8x3w9c+LAUOwI76XIb0de5D6SDHhUDBVF/mhGGY=
X-Sasl-enc: 1qrM/5UEd/K+0XDyvuD5hYdVLIg5he/uqxA9D1/IuXIq 1464294679
Received: from [21.147.179.119] (66-87-153-119.pools.spcsdns.net [66.87.153.119]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C2453CCD2E; Thu, 26 May 2016 16:31:19 -0400 (EDT)
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <E449AFCA-A49D-42FE-A8FF-973CA61F302E@network-heretics.com> <6771A81D-EBE9-4A88-B7BA-E1CE9778C1BF@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6771A81D-EBE9-4A88-B7BA-E1CE9778C1BF@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <C596423D-BC7B-4A0E-BE5A-906F05735917@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70)
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:31:17 -0400
To: Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/N4p52WIO_Qku3lcAjAEnLNyFGD4>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 26 May 2016 20:39:30 -0000


Sent from my iPhone

> On May 26, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What about the IAOC writing to the IETF list and/or recent attendees when they are considering going to a new country, asking if anyone has any feedback on the idea?

It certainly seems cheaper than paying lawyers.  But how does the IAOC evaluate that feedback?  If someone makes claims about laws in that country, seems like IAOC would be in the same boat as it is now regarding Singapore. I don't think feedback from recent attendees should be presumed to be an accurate representation of the situation in a country, particularly when the members of that list might not adequately represent marginalized groups.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email