Re: [IAB] IAB statement on the NETmundial Initiative

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Tue, 23 December 2014 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6921ACDA9 for <>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 03:39:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Yqu5BhtoEmt for <>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 03:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24A511ACDB2 for <>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 03:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id u10so5279081lbd.3 for <>; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 03:39:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VirOnnR/5q09YgO0zESwHAhlmRBORSgVtVI3ES1V8TI=; b=kTmjET84O302SiqZkXwWac8PeBnlL44Cdlk98BYJZhl6bQdliCqqPk4MRe6HIvBqV9 Ba7r23RZ4YZvB9eTZc3SFjH1/Q8HDvsHTLshMe3wqAQKKdXiGpcRxy2ATWdv2p7P21wo nv3BdCwqSpMPHT9K1I8ytYobGtkJHVVadZoUbU6Qf1frtK5iyfoiM0aJdYPsGDiaY/AT cDxOyJP2rXKEYvOtUc2btrVG1C95CKFZImh+ulLbCk0FYEX8KZOuo0+qChEQGPVNrIBU Z1Z6EQAZRdbvR2FM6Kz2YdjJtTY2AMuRok2n4figXvWzX1BetQ0xoPPeesqdO32VHj/s vrxA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id pk3mr27009681lac.19.1419334776514; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 03:39:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 03:39:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141223024728.23569.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <> <20141223024728.23569.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:39:36 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: _5oH3fmkvWK1okvA5W14QrW_GEw
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [IAB] IAB statement on the NETmundial Initiative
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: John Levine <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113409d42bedc3050ae0a14c
Cc: John C Klensin <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:39:42 -0000

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 2:47 AM, John Levine <> wrote:

> >as inconsistent with IETF norms, then, whatever the value of
> >such meetings might be, it is time to stop attending --and
> >adding IETF/IAB credibility by your presence-- unless you can
> >get firm guarantees, in advance, about whether statements will
> >be issued and, if they will be, how they are approved.
> Good luck with those firm guarantees.
> I don't see much benefit in staying away, since that just means the
> conspirators will conspire out of our sight.  But it appears that our
> leadership may often find themselves in places where they'll have to
> say that they went to the meeting, and they will report back to the
> IETF and/or IAB, but they cannot bind their organizations and hence
> cannot sign whatever the communique says.  I do not envy them the
> complaints this will provoke from everyone else at the meeting, but
> that's why we pay them those big bucks.

Like many folk on this list, I suspect, I have a long memory of being
assured that my concern about X happening is completely unwarranted, then
many years later being told that 'everyone' understood that X would happen
and implicitly agreed to it.