Re: [IAB] IAB statement on the NETmundial Initiative

"John Levine" <> Tue, 23 December 2014 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1D21ACD3C for <>; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 18:47:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sN2_g56q95bm for <>; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 18:47:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13A731ACD33 for <>; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 18:47:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 84799 invoked from network); 23 Dec 2014 02:47:45 -0000
Received: from ( by with QMQP; 23 Dec 2014 02:47:45 -0000
Date: 23 Dec 2014 02:47:28 -0000
Message-ID: <20141223024728.23569.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
Subject: Re: [IAB] IAB statement on the NETmundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 02:47:53 -0000

>as inconsistent with IETF norms, then, whatever the value of
>such meetings might be, it is time to stop attending --and
>adding IETF/IAB credibility by your presence-- unless you can
>get firm guarantees, in advance, about whether statements will
>be issued and, if they will be, how they are approved.

Good luck with those firm guarantees.

I don't see much benefit in staying away, since that just means the
conspirators will conspire out of our sight.  But it appears that our
leadership may often find themselves in places where they'll have to
say that they went to the meeting, and they will report back to the
IETF and/or IAB, but they cannot bind their organizations and hence
cannot sign whatever the communique says.  I do not envy them the
complaints this will provoke from everyone else at the meeting, but
that's why we pay them those big bucks.

The GAC at ICANN is often like that, they send a rep who can talk but
can't sign off on anything without getting consensus from the full
GAC, which is not easily obtained.  The rest of ICANN finds this
extremely irritating and wishes the GAC would act like other groups,
but they won't, and it's just as well.