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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Fri, 27 May 2016 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E4B12D186 for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UZkwLS0g5iiC for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E4AA12D61C for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c127so110319320ywb.1 for <>; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wJ1369KMXZrgpLdG8IF5v7yk7YKBVZo6+n+yQ5qnQpM=; b=nSuoKUQYnRqcJmzcWDY9xUdwP/fYfumS+Iy3q3ArOeQxNjM5/hLjydPqwrJev5sw5I mH3V79PZaDvs6sEkBxFQoafL1ebZmmdDpp4PXvpTbaEO6/Ykmo8vMd0gyOktdXSPeT4d sj/6yX9e/nZxaj0KFjtux/PEn1ywZuJZ5QJZTEJx3G/cOIH2wI9/hpY20q2unxkClKO0 jlo4g1kJXWULYGB6ORm8LMEJnq2aw+OHFHyiV2toV0RwvXMVmH4fvNSSz28QD/xs8Bo7 D1oW1r0RsjiNx8i4Yo206j/qquJVfYj5QQ0Pz+BEkPxL+aNOWypkk5xZN+TCAgiTfzK6 Kmtg==
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=wJ1369KMXZrgpLdG8IF5v7yk7YKBVZo6+n+yQ5qnQpM=; b=MzC3jK7sAWr4c6RgomsrrsE8LI5KYqN11kAuCmUqcbKhJk33sjjHQri41Ps287Ujq0 J4Z953qIDx5V+yCi3pvbKBCy5dQLyvfcppmemlGroCF1M3rdxM5T4C8RvU0YhXbsDgMi Mn+UKbbZj8M8LEMxspjauoh8meRvXTnJ03GJ8t6KSwaW2aU4jBi9MYP9YljTduElfspO E0nhhZteDxVU7yiF7oIit7UoXVB8a+0JvEJZvEHjD+dhbQzV8FQYcWZJ1NnjBvDYxLn2 3SUldqEv9gtlP0QjLwM3TPCCSLjXJKvl+/65mjTgJEG3AAul+sr/pNZ9EZ1dEH08eZMJ Qhfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIZ2p+oHDLg9YPdECAOh4wLoQY6sf7hQ8EXstaKWSUGRlNqWylfZSddTppnRCC5DHZybdW2DniMiqlh0WAO
X-Received: by with SMTP id d205mr9023554ywh.323.1464365715093; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 01:14:55 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: John C Klensin <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c128e544589e90533d53673
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
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, 27 May 2016 16:24:31 -0000

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:34 AM, John C Klensin <> wrote:

> if we start to make
> decisions about what it is appropriate or not for us to do based
> on what some group of critics might find useful, that is the
> most purely political decision-making of all.

I think it's not so much a question of making decisions based on which
group of critics might say what. It's which decisions and statements we

The IETF is a technical organization, and debating technical issues is
within its charter and its expertise. If the IETF makes statements in other
areas, then it will be making statements that are outside its charter and
area of expertise. Due to lack of expertise, those statements are likely to
be less effective than those of other organizations that *are* in their
area of expertise, and if we are unlucky, they could turn out to be poorly
worded or backfire.

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.

Again, this is separate from debates on our internal codes of conduct.
Those are discussions that participants have to have or at least be
affected by, because the organization cannot operate without codes of