Re: Transparency of IAOC

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 12 April 2016 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69EC012D553 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HXjFJ0pI5zT9 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8585B12B044 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j11so41804219lfb.1 for <>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vuuG4JxzuTf1mo7c30avGcgzlEcLGyf0/Zuh9BSaMh8=; b=JvJ9vczj4xZyvgbcs7ryLgIqfkB5HIrNcRXJXwJIeH/g+y5vR9XEflIR8Sl8YCKuP4 P08yR5K0ITg3E6D9wAo2Xxovmyp52MVRZa0+9Jk3SxKk+/NiHcxepQ8Sk0uSCsJIBPNZ 54KMa8XtwbU6zJYotyQnBWnLhLOnaE/Q8YPFm8OIZZQMEFnAtFwhxaQN4TyksIhZ9Fel 7SsZXEh1F70GvFWkprclf8R4bMbBVk3RdkX+nJSYPFDv4gEmzQT2dBcuwc0juu/0JRMP bhqZppH6/xtxmRKIRiCDdQBG6jCR00GAzOVO7/CXq4wzssNK/ORP6WsJS+UqmdV7F4c9 MPyQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vuuG4JxzuTf1mo7c30avGcgzlEcLGyf0/Zuh9BSaMh8=; b=m81gxVqpXB6QqNvpyQH9QW7FX9lTOCIGqKEUm8TWyDCNGyIZXO2mR5FbRe8B29Vhjl rf2mT6ESWLnkvcJj8la/RSzCL40GB9wl9zepnhS44Rhslrm0aCqI6C3SxXt2ynF+0Y84 Dv+o1ba8gRv2QOrtd9QZADPIPMlDVNs6IG+8W17FNDz3IuSTJSvm0CseHJcJVzMHx/rU m7boRLnIYvVI1aEQzu4Fcjpsax8HMUwxhmx5mNCHVX1Zd5DjiIHz4rrgSXaFOwHedHXE SnBjUitSQjnkx7XaTYWPuAr2UuGDFlCz6WavbB0uiS+e2LN0LA0RdDHFSj+Di9kbRbyt gQig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWzIJJAV+njy4OUVQ/WxECijGYzalJeC0V/+hCsF04CkPfwr680Uogm52oZ72zRDCNcF0WK8qFwVU35ag==
X-Received: by with SMTP id sb8mr2273310lbb.83.1460493255700; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:33:36 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Transparency of IAOC
To: SM <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011832bab407ac05304f952e
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Dave Crocker <>, ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 20:34:19 -0000

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:00 PM, SM <> wrote:

> Is it appropriate to ask questions to the IAOC?  I don't see people who
> have been part of the "leadership" doing that.  Maybe, it will be viewed as
> politically incorrect and it is not good for a person's IETF career.  In
> other words, it is a matter of perception.

I feel I can speak as an authority on this topic when I say that there is
zero chance that this is a problem.   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.   Granted,
that's not necessarily always a good thing, but IESG people say plenty of
things to the IAOC about stuff like this, and I have never seen them act in
the slightest bit impatient about it.   Not only that, but we had a BoF in
BA about this topic.

Importantly, while the IESG is officially the host for IETFs, and therefore
obviously should have some say in this sort of thing, if we want more
transparency from the IAOC, it is we, the participants in the IETF, who are
responsible for asking for it, not the IESG, except to the extent that like
us, they are participants.