Re: IAB volunteers

John C Klensin <> Thu, 26 May 2016 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447E712D61C for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M_p8A2llgNgO for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8672A12D677 for <>; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1b5xms-000CTI-M6; Thu, 26 May 2016 12:05:30 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 12:05:25 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Ted Hardie <>, S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: IAB volunteers
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 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: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:05:39 -0000

--On Thursday, May 26, 2016 08:44 -0700 Ted Hardie
<> wrote:

> If a volunteer could not attend in person, I believe the IAB
> would ask ICANN to provide facilities for remote
> participation.  I've put this question on the IAB agenda for
> the June 1st meeting, so that we can confirm that or provide a
> more complete answer.

My experience with ICANN is that they have been quite good about
providing (and supporting) reasonable accommodation to special
needs, especially for needs they would be required to
accommodate were a meeting to be scheduled for their HQ.
Whatever the other differences between IETF and ICANN, the
latter rarely needs to ask itself if it should do something that
its community would otherwise consider undesirable because of
the budgetary impact.  

I think it is entirely reasonable for the IAB to inquire as Ted
suggests, but I believe that a discussion of what ICANN (or any
other internationally-oriented organization in the Internet
space) would do is entirely irrelevant to the question of what
we should do about the location IETF 100.  

FWIW, I (and I assume others) am having a great deal of trouble
keeping up with this thread and still having time left over to
get any IETF-related technical work done.  It would be really
helpful, IMO, if people would try to avoid introducing topics
that are likely to lead us further into the weeds ("who is going
to sue ISOC" strikes me as another example) unless you are
convinced that they are _really_ important.