Re: Observations on (non-technical) changes affecting IETF operations

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 25 March 2016 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E017812D539 for <>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=GsxeLEqS; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=gCqwTaDN
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1iL3VU2gxRJr for <>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E0912D63E for <>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2PJD1fB021576 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1458933193; x=1459019593; bh=cA8FJXoez9m35MrUv0yBDtNhFgZsdp/3BRvkiQRWMHs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=GsxeLEqSctDcSz6i8Ca80aZkFFz4Kt/MHLSR3QCa8UZDycKXwkS6O9PwvLgWYR7a/ 25wxcuMPUqbzudLxiB/4bjjkK/e53IOgmyRqPVlkeSVTEwea5BMh4QvlNvorv/y2Vt //AaS1LkI16XA1RlEPyZxNruqPhA6kpp0jTRiNZ4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1458933193; x=1459019593;; bh=cA8FJXoez9m35MrUv0yBDtNhFgZsdp/3BRvkiQRWMHs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=gCqwTaDNWhsqcxxL5uFJRWkB180zp9RqwB+bSKMMW4yiLVzR2OmsFzy/Pde5AQ0r2 FNKEbSfV3OeLyLDzPxjNQ1m3OFc4g/XEMG1IEa6cqXItZeA7LcSm0T3fcoNcavEvOq t8JErYkKCRqQFlCB+j7vg2hz/ABsbzoinDUyCbHI=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:07:36 -0700
To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: Observations on (non-technical) changes affecting IETF operations
In-Reply-To: <CABtrr-Xy412wMyagmx9+n98iCmyN6mOiY7mL0VVYgjo0tv3Deg@mail.g>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Steve Olshansky <>,
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: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:13:21 -0000

Hi Joseph,
At 03:44 25-03-2016, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>I guess it depends on what you mean by politics. There have certainly
>been drafts that discuss law and policy considerations of potential


>"This document is motivated by the recognition that technical design
>decisions made within the IETF and other standards bodies can have
>significant impacts on public policy concerns."

Any attempt to influence the decision of a government is politics.  A 
technical design decision can have a social, economic or legal 
impact.  Would some of those decisions be viewed as political issues?  Yes.

S. Moonesamy