On Thu July 8 2010 15:24, Fred Baker wrote: > On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > > On Jul 8, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > >> Boy, would they dispute that. ITU has claimed that the IETF is not an > >> open organization because a government cannot join it. Most membership > >> organizations, RIPE, being an example, have a definition of how someone > >> can become a member (members of RIPE are companies and pay a fee), and > >> are considered open to that class of membership. > > > > But the IETF isn't a membership organization - isn't that > > at least in part what's meant by "open," and why at least in > > part we don't have voting (in theory)? > > We don't have voting because we don't have members, yes. Definitions of > "open" vary, and boil down to a statement of what kind of actor an > organization is open to. IETF is open to individuals. > Appears to me this conversation/thread is leaning toward "open" being used synonymous to "anonymous".... -- Larry Smith lesmith@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf