--On Monday, October 05, 2009 10:45 -0700 Dave CROCKER
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>
>> I have done a little digging around on the questions I asked
>> and thought I might summarize some of the responses I got
>> back to my email.
>>
>> More inline .... Note all the comments below do not refer to
>> the "Special Administrative Regions". I strongly support
>> Ted's suggestion that running the meeting in one of theses
>> zones would eliminate the concerns I have raised.
>
>
> Cullen,
>
> At its base, your exercise seems to be an effort at doing the
> IAOC's job for it. It's their job to research venue details
> and make choices and to ensure the logistics for productive
> IETF meetings. The IETF as a body is not likely to become
> experts in the details of holding a meeting in China. Nor is
> it our job to.
>
> The IAOC came to us with a very specific question. To the
> extent we pursue other questions, we dilute the help we can
> give them to resolve this one, difficult issue that they've
> asked us about. By virtue of the public ruckus a debate on
> the IETF list can cause, it also could de-stabilize the
> considerable 10-year effort that has been put in, to get
> arrangements to their current point.
>...
Dave, I disagree, at least slightly, but that is because I
suffer from a concern --documented in a "request for review" and
previous notes to this list-- that the IAOC/Trustees are _not_
doing their job, or at least the part of that job that requires
keeping the community informed about the decisions they are
making and the reasons for them.
In Cullen's situation, I would have asked the questions a little
differently. And I agree that he is trying to do their job for
them, but, other than more "requests for review" that get
responses that amount to "things are Under Control and Just
Fine", I don't know what else I would suggest that he do... and
wonder what you would suggest.
Suppose he posted a list of questions to which he thought we
should have answers before we put a meeting in any location that
has a reputation (justified or not) for regulating the free flow
of information, asked whether the IAOC had answers to those
questions for a particular case, and, if they did, that they
share those answers with the community? I think that would be
reasonable and that the IAOC could reasonably respond to such a
question by saying "yes, similar questions were asked, we think
the answers are reasonable, and the discussion is documented in
the IAOC Minutes of ...". Except that he did ask, hasn't
gotten an answer like that and, by the way, there are no minutes
of enough substance to be pointed to on that (or any other)
issue.
What is to be done?
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf