Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 26 March 2017 09:11 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 00681124B0A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 mlazjdpcyCRS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:11:56 -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 A6D6F12420B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 02:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1cs4DH-0004zq-7U; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 05:11:51 -0400
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 05:11:50 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request
Message-ID: <9E387DF69E6A5D294E99F6DF@[192.168.7.38]>
In-Reply-To: <BB078B16-C911-4505-9BB0-C0BEE2C6F5C4@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <20170324193951.85037.qmail@ary.lan> <5DAE09F6-D7DE-47B4-ABA6-BC9A92DDEE4E@qti.qualcomm.com> <alpine.OSX.2.20.1703241826550.72979@ary.qy> <0341FB9B-E672-400C-916E-3C6AC0685307@qti.qualcomm.com> <303E2204-762B-43A5-9469-1E063948344C@piuha.net> <BB078B16-C911-4505-9BB0-C0BEE2C6F5C4@qti.qualcomm.com>
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: ::1
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/S-1MuW4eWN9vLeWmBuzUZmt3Z48>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:11:58 -0000
--On Saturday, 25 March, 2017 15:42 -0500 Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote: > Thanks Jari. I was absolutely contributing to missing the > forest for the trees. Sorry for that. My apparent vehemence > notwithstanding, it's not the particular mechanism I care > about; it's that we end up with a structure where the IETF > maintains control over its own affairs, and decides for itself > what is (or is not) important to it. You are exactly right > that we need to figure out what's important first, and figure > out mechanism to make that happen second. Pete, One quick observation. While this certainly won't be applicable to all situations, responding to a judge who has said, or authorized someone to say "do X" by "well, our rules or bylaws don't allow us to do X so we are either going to just interpret your order as 'do Y' or we will do nothing until you tell us to do Y" is not likely to have an attractive outcome. Of course, "unattractive" doesn't necessarily mean "undesirable" -- that depends on what one is trying to accomplish. It seems to me that some of what you have suggested is quite analogous to civil disobedience -- entirely justified and appropriate if one feels strongly enough about an issue to make that type of public statement, but something that one should do only if one is willing to accept the possibility of hostile attacks and/or jail time. As you know, those are not just metaphors. john
- IETF subpoena processes update and a request IETF Chair
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Angela
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Randy Bush
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Scott Bradner
- RE: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Michael Cameron
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Scott Bradner
- RE: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Michael Cameron
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Randy Bush
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Scott Bradner
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request John C Klensin
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Scott O. Bradner
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Pete Resnick
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request John Levine
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Pete Resnick
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Nico Williams
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Pete Resnick
- IAOC membership (was: Re: IETF subpoena processes… Dave Crocker
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Joe Touch
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request John R Levine
- Re: RTBF, was IETF subpoena processes update and … John Levine
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Pete Resnick
- Re: RTBF, was IETF subpoena processes update and … Joe Touch
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Jari Arkko
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request Pete Resnick
- Re: IETF subpoena processes update and a request John C Klensin