Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Sat, 15 April 2017 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C777612946C for <>; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9JwctbPZQ1jv for <>; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9190D127444 for <>; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1492289651; x=1492894451; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=Anj68qevhdi7OeFJYX5YIXFH7ZXK7g5eMtjHfwKnviA=; b=b8Qrm4E6qOqbE 3grtJyNdqwgVxDMASci3/khYCX/zx64gip0wd72oKyXcANO7/ga5IJ+5wrEFJqOA YgpppfxvF54Hzy8sQelmTBPZiygQMnkrLuRr9dV+QMAYR7Aftbd1EDMvQNb/qfZ9 4WOTOEogo3TJ6Q2scd1wHWsBiHQM+s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon;; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=KBuBCWNYoS/2qsWz/TtEy7HvfwyYFpejeVVJWxv20205EzsRFYrGWOeWWG4a w/btIXG9XM4y2bIrMITUb+M5S9PQIRY/sBuvV2EqArVGLC6MRngcLrW31 Da37rT+iCf3BP2QQyJOn1iiziQ5PjNMavDlyGv0+pLR6GGt09VbM7I=;
X-MDAV-Processed:, Sat, 15 Apr 2017 22:54:11 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Sat, 15 Apr 2017 22:54:10 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005409061.msg for <>; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 22:54:10 +0200
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-HashCash: 1:20:170415:md50005409061::E/udKB8bE4J9QkNy:000017O5
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.21.0.170409
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 22:54:09 +0200
Subject: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
To: "" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:54:16 -0000

Hi all,

I’ve been pointed out in a private message that the last part of my sentence in the message below, could be interpreted as a disparage of the education of individuals in the IAOC.

I just want to apologize if somebody understood that, as it was clearly not my intend. The mistake comes from the way we are used to say “falta de educación” or “maleducado” in Spanish when somebody should have done something that he promised and didn’t that, as it is the case, and instead I should have used “impolite”.

This shows something that I believe most of the native English IETF participants usually don’t realize when having discussion (I’m referring here in general, also technical discussions) with non-native speakers, and how difficult is for the others. Maybe we should switch to Chinese as the default IETF language, or Spanish, as they have more speakers worldwide than English!

I’m still believe that IAOC attitude is not justified at all, and if we don’t have answers from them by next Monday, we should consider a recall process. Hopefully is not the case.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <>rg>; en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <>es>;
Responder a: <>gt;;
Fecha: viernes, 14 de abril de 2017, 01:24
Para: <>rg>;
Asunto: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

Well, for some countries what Trump said, has already been a fact, for example the prohibition to have computers on board. Is not that the case?

Whatever we want to decide, cancel SF or not, it may highly depend on budget, we like it or not. And that means that we need answers:

    If we cancel San Francisco, how much that is going to cost to the IETF for each of two planned meetings?
    Can we cancel the actual hotel contract considering the new US situation? If not, has this been considered for new contracts to avoid this problem?
    Otherwise there is any reason that can justify the lack of transparency in this?

The problem is so big for this community that I don’t even agree that the IAOC should take the decision. It must be a collective one, especially when the IAOC is demonstrating thru facts that they don’t care that we are discussing and wasting our time without the minimum relevant data, this is disrespectful and even more, not responding to emails since even since years ago, shows lack of education 


IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.