Re: [Mtgvenue] document status, the role of the iaoc, and enforceability

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 1/8/2017 9:38 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> However, they should have read the IETF discussion list and the
> triannual attendees mailing lists to get a sense of which concerns might
> be raised.


SM, I think your summary matches the model that some others share.

However prior to the announcement of Singapore, what record was there on 
"the IETF discussion list and the triannual attendees mailing lists" 
that informed the IAOC/Meetings committee about the concerns that were 
finally raised about Singapore?

Any model that presumes that the IAOC/Meetings committee is going to 
know all of the relevant concerns of the IETF community, about each 
possible meeting city, is certain to fail eventually.  There are too 
many possible issues and their importance to the community varies over 
time.

No formalized text is going to be sufficiently accurate or complete over 
the long term.  Stating broad principles can be helpful for shared 
reference during discussion, but assuming that any such text will 
provide sufficient synchrony between the committee and the community 
will eventually fail.

The only way to ensure that community concerns are recognized adequately 
is for the open, early-stage community comment process that has recently 
been added.  And it effectively marginalizes the importance of any 
detailed document text we might create, about political/legal/social 
concerns.


d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net