Re: Transparency of IAOC

["Scott O. Bradner" <[e-mail]>]

such an exercise is worthwhile & has been underway for a few weeks 
you will see some results very soon

Scott

> On Apr 12, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> On 12/04/16 21:32, 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 - budget negotiation, contract negotiations, staff issues,
>> operation security, and (with their Trustee hats on) legal issues. So
>> there are going to be more problems about community access to IAOC
>> proceedings than for the IESG.
> 
> What I'm wondering is if, given the above, anyone has done an
> analysis of what the IAOC really needs to keep confidential and
> what does not need to be confidential?
> 
> For example, recent events have fairly conclusively shown that
> the "cities being considered" data which is related to "contract
> negotiation" really ought not be confidential, at least in some
> aggregated form. If you go back some years, the IETF meeting
> hotel was also a not-so-well-kept secret until bookings opened,
> and when we changed that the sky did not fall. So that's another
> example. And if say the vmeet mailing list had been the place
> where it was decided that IETF-95 remote attendees would have to
> register, then we might have avoided that fuss. I can't see how
> making that decision on that public list would have hurt anything
> even though the fine meetecho support overall nvolves quite a few
> of the issues related to confidentiality you list above.
> 
> I don't know if the IAOC has analysed such things more generally.
> But I hope it does do that once it's sorted out what to do about
> IETF-100. I suspect that to date, the IAOC has been treating too
> much data as confidential when that's not really needed. I figure
> ending up in that state is quite understandable, but is not in the
> end a good plan.
> 
> And I don't believe we've actually heard the IAOC say that they
> do think such a general exercise is or is not worthwhile. I do
> think that some such statement now that the IAOC will consider a
> switch to a default-open posture would be very very useful and
> has not yet been made. (*)
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> (*) Leslie's mail [1] only referred to reviewing meeting planning,
> but not e.g. to any broader re-consideration which is what I'm
> arguing would be better.
> 
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg97545.html
> 
> 
>