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

<lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk> Tue, 31 May 2016 03:34 UTC

Return-Path: <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FA812D1DD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2016 20:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Kv3w9upGlya for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2016 20:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm50-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm50-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.121.150]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02E5512D096 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 May 2016 20:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s2048; t=1464665688; bh=gwPOvg5w4JRECUPDDJi3I204Eq5tTZpi0b8k8xwYxjA=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=fJu5hDIqJQFVAcq3jtwm2lTXoKtXMpUZt9/7LWeqZvb1u7UssOZWtegCOygRXPw6q+CIB5x9xOKkA1lypeepuUncFjP+n4t6i7pbYoXCH4eCJ1FjSXQiHoA4Rr8ztt1K21Fa+BHjI5JtawIes1xxM0sHTLhYPFicAhK4f6hiJdhOwXBLhG+79BzEZZ/qL2rXBkE9EYkO0t3ND2Ss2AzDKgk+6IuwCLgfJ3NsUv9eEjMTc7KY/GXKQ62dx4Vxx5husR+8/2KkQrWu5BpR0K6Cs0CmGxtnh+G5ri450/yOzwhHvxzmLVk+8XgNin+LsRUJbi7fwPCot20xN1Fuov0klQ==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by nm50.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 May 2016 03:34:48 -0000
Received: from [98.138.100.111] by nm50.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 May 2016 03:31:53 -0000
Received: from [212.82.98.56] by tm100.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 May 2016 03:31:53 -0000
Received: from [212.82.98.86] by tm9.bullet.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 May 2016 03:31:53 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1023.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 May 2016 03:31:53 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 174117.79335.bm@omp1023.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: IKnAWKAVM1lCSTYBWpGFffZKTpVFWT1QDrjaCRxiE5ECIdywppeyqZxuBUrG5ya beEc2BSbd1N11SlrWrMGUK_o2Y.E1tfy5et0ZJUM7lb3IuMcMME0pN_i.EvTBBE5IFHbB0No6CJP dBSuHUzJ2Eaybf8OBr4ymCcHLyLlO4o.p25B_2OeUl6Q9F91W5TZNrLkcbfGSuCdXpQwN7hXudp3 SLnXNugyiTCQs4LQv7SViawDQBhohJ4.qHihaXWfh3yLQ7YjOY6x.ZEMu0B3Tc0dNCEtEbBXrgiV GRQ7bIhAXzGeWs3CTzIiZ1VXhS7CJKvggHb0RlfbuRhDac2swcuo.JyKQTpCQpvgIKZzyEKm3WsF 5vn8FwTMyPT5OygU3kguS75bOmTUMGB57HEpoSCf_420wRqzq09zESniGCenT5MdPoP7uMGTaZnh v9IrreH4yox7J8Ligr.g7rce0nlBJpmSDUb.zdwUkoDorWA1xD5d7QARZDTHiO5q19bFnPNBRgYK 7XPQz2pMlPbEzPGDQrfqDx1y31A2p.VzCWE4c_sc-
Received: from jws11112.mail.ir2.yahoo.com by sendmailws101b.mail.ir2.yahoo.com; Tue, 31 May 2016 03:31:52 +0000; 1464665512.525
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 03:31:52 +0000 (UTC)
From: <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Message-ID: <745447335.3293403.1464665512147.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1odQ-5v6t6HBXGWzOyUJOaMtxcFjVOwwfVqrJ35jz55g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr2wyE8SVq_FBWvp5ipVNhqMDs0QnvyL7jJtbKKxCr3bGA@mail.gmail.com> <096736229B32B700FCB16703@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAKD1Yr1odQ-5v6t6HBXGWzOyUJOaMtxcFjVOwwfVqrJ35jz55g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xRivoUMyxgxfDAxMrMG0U5J_JW0>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 03:34:55 -0000

> 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.
(Because the IETF famously couldn't govern itself, and if there's
just one thing that ISOC is all about, it's governing other things.)

If you're not willing to make a statement on a non-technical field,
ISOC will decide what you think, and make that statement for you.

ISOC "acts as a public relations channel for the times
that one of the "I" groups wants to say something to the press.
The ISOC is one of the major unsung heroes of the Internet."
-- says ISOC, singing its praises in the Tao.


L.

this is a bit like learning the truth
of the Bible from the Bible.
Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk http://about.me/lloydwood 



________________________________
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> 
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, 28 May 2016, 2:14
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100



On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:34 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> 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 make.

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 conduct.