Adam, Not quite. I think we have heard the comments of the community loud and clear and we are working hard to deal with the issues. I also should state that we have not formally made a decision about this proposed meeting. The survey is still open, and comments are still coming in, both on the public list and in private. That is why I said "stay tuned, there is more to come." And, no I wasn't speaking formally for the IAOC, just expressing a snapshot, rough-consensus opinion. If my comments were interpreted as dismissing the feedback, then I apologize. My goal has only been to clarify. I have no personal stake in whether we go to China or not. I just want to make sure that our decision is based on an overall evaluation of the facts as we know them, and very much with the input of the community. We're not done yet, and we hear you. Ole On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Adam Roach wrote: > > Earlier in this thread, I had interpreted your comments being a representation > of your opinion on the topic. However, your later emails imply (or, as above, > expressly state) that you are speaking on behalf of the IAOC. > > If the statement of "everything will be okay, and the concerns of several > dozen IETFers are misplaced" is your personal opinion, then I completely > understand. I know that there has been a *lot* of work behind the scenes to > pull this together. It would be very hard to be involved in that work without > becoming deeply emotionally invested in the outcome. I honestly sympathize > with your position, and completely understand why you would hold it > personally. > > However, if the position you have repeatedly espoused is actually a formal > statement of the IAOC's position, then I am worried about the IAOC's motives > in starting this thread. That would make it seem that the "request for > community guidance" was actually a request for a pro-forma approval of the > IAOC position. If you are speaking as an IAOC representative, then your goal > in this thread appears to have been exclusively aimed at attempting to refute > or dismiss the community's concerns, rather than listening to them. > > I don't mean to imply that there hasn't been a smattering of support for your > position. But on the balance, if I had to call consensus on this question, it > would definitely fall on the side of "there is significant community concern > about this provision." > > Your statement that I quote above is a continuation of your pattern of > interaction on this thread: dismissing any concerns that anyone has raised on > the topic. And that would be fine as a personal position. However, you are now > attributing your position of wholesale dismissal to the IAOC. > > In which case I would humbly offer some advice: if the IAOC is not willing to > accept community input, it should not have solicited it. > > /a > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf