Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

[<[e-mail]>]

> But a statement around the legal rights of same-sex partners is not "within its technical domain"?
> It's not within any technical domain, in fact...


I'm pretty sure there's a 'be liberal in what you accept,
but conservative in what you do' aphorism
in there struggling to get out. 

Lloyd Wood [e-mail] http://about.me/lloydwood 



________________________________
From: Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] 
Cc: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>; IETF Discussion <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016, 13:38
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100



On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:31 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> But there's another problem, too: because the IETF is a technical organization
>> that publishes documents, everyone who participates in the IETF by definition
>> finds it acceptable to make technical statements, otherwise they wouldn't be
>> IETF participants. That's what they signed up for. They might not be willing
>> to make statements in other fields, because that's not what they signed up for.
>> We don't know until we ask them. We might want to do that before making
>> non-technical statements in the name of the organization.
>
>too late.
>
>See e.g RFC3271 ('ideology', 'noble goal'), RFC1984, RFC7258...
>
>The IETF is now a function of the Internet Society (ISOC), expressing
>the policies of the Internet Society within its technical domain.
>

But a statement around the legal rights of same-sex partners is not "within its technical domain"? It's not within any technical domain, in fact...