Re: Transparency of IAOC

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 13 April 2016 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 502E712DF51 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=Mi5+7MVK; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=resistor.net header.b=WaC4BNTC
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 SI9ijh7ptXJv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2050712D0A9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3D8XNHG024386 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1460536412; x=1460622812; bh=510SPMxihDodVyf96aimERuJbDblDICZVb46kH4Ku40=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Mi5+7MVKjLWJ5EJp4ZFrrLOcyqrdt8xxkU+4ckk4Hbe3wY7pxCw1UTxHHUMinJvwi JYUCTGbvDHiskJNHqokjaKdgLP0P3mZNFlBcpISQRqY1V9BlJ3I94w7v8iXaHi97/H oWBAFXQUKkTt7tAFh1jOGioRLfQvD+JUWXm7gRtI=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1460536412; x=1460622812; i=@resistor.net; bh=510SPMxihDodVyf96aimERuJbDblDICZVb46kH4Ku40=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=WaC4BNTCFMPvTXuLa97dqsjAhNgzDu+AqGCMVYEwVNB7Cy3BuJTbhCabbz9yYWCaJ APyuguoa2M5r3K1H/xz4vDI9OVM+TJQJLREzZRVlbjI2Db4U5Z3ziuQAqfmNhigYoP DG7geOXdRZPCH3W251vBchGc5oHO/Ccceg1CwSpg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20160413002237.0f592e80@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:30:21 -0700
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Transparency of IAOC
In-Reply-To: <570D5B51.8090307@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20160412031201.0da034e8@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20160412114424.0e7061b0@resistor.net> <570D5B51.8090307@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RaBePJJk59Lb4zl1_-LknBkub8U>
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, 13 Apr 2016 08:33:37 -0000

Hi Brian, Ted, Spencer,
At 13:32 12-04-2016, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Of course it is. But (compared to the IESG) the IAOC does deal with a
>comparatively large fraction of issues that have confidential aspects -

I'll skip this as there is a comment at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg97822.html

At 13:33 12-04-2016, Ted Lemon wrote:
>I feel I can speak as an authority on this topic 
>when I say that there is zero chance that this 
>is a problem. Â  If the IAOC do not always do 
>what we want, it is because (a) that is 
>impossible, since there is no "we" that is both 
>in agreement and also representative of the 
>wishes of all IETF participants and (b) I know 
>everybody on the IAOC and they just don't behave 
>as if they think complaining by IESG people is a problem.

Ok.

At 13:51 12-04-2016, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>SM, if you're talking about people in 
>"leadership" (is that what we are?) asking 
>questions of the IAOC on the IETF mailing list, you may very well be right.

The term "leadership" was used in the message at 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77723.html

>But I do drop notes to the IAOC directly, either 
>to the IAD or to the overall IAOC, and I don't 
>know how anyone in the broader community would know that I've done that.

Ok.

Regards,
-sm