On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/16/14 10:37 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
My statement was in no way an NIH response. I stated factually that the
issues being discussed are well known and they are challenging. I also
noted that ICANN solved part of the problem covering travel expenses.
In no way did I make any statement with regards to whether we ought to
talk to ICANN.
You also made no statement about your intention to contact ICANN and open a dialog with them.
[MB] Which means I made NO statement whatsover one way or the other. I provided you with no information upon which you ought to have drawn the conclusions you did. I am a very literal person and my not saying something means that I did not say something. You presumed something based upon the fact that I did not explicitly say something.
[/MB]
What you did do was attempt to demonstrate your thorough knowledge of the topic, as well as your familiarity with ICANN's solutions; which to me sounds like justification for NOT contacting them. Sounds pretty NIH'y to me, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
[MB] I provided a concrete example of the fact that we have been plagued with this problem for a while and that as Nomcom chair it struck me as an important issue back in 2009. We discussed this at the March IETF in Anaheim in 2010. Careful note, that since you did not reply one way or the other as to whether you read my Nomcom report, I'm going to make the crazy assumption that I DON'T KNOW the answer to that question based on your response.
I made a single, factual statement about how ICANN solved "part" of the problem. I in no way intended that statement to mean that I thought there was thus no need to talk to ICANN.
[/MB]
So rather than accusing me of an ad hominem attack (which, FWIW, is also a form of ad hominem attack), why not simply address the question directly? Will you contact ICANN to open up a dialog, and if not, why not?
[MB] Simple answer. I will not personally contact ICANN. I think the suggestion is not at all a bad idea, but right now I don't have the time nor is anyone paying me for any of the work I am currently doing in IETF. I'm not that nice of a person.
Yet again, I thought I was providing some helpful, relevant information on a IETF discussion and my *intent* was totally misconstrued with assumptions being made and suggestions that I was being "arrogant to the extreme", which is a tad amusing if you really knew me. And, yes, I totally agree that my response was an attack of sort, but the ABSOLUTE one thing I have learned being a women in IETF is that unless I do that I am NOT listened to all. So, in my experience, it's still better to be heard than totally ignored! This, of course, gets us to the very serious problem with IETF culture (as evidenced by virtually all IETF discussion threads), which is the hostile environment. Unfortunately to work in IETF one often has to change what one considers to be civil behavior in order to defend oneself when one has been mis-understood. In certain cultures, that's acceptable, but it's certainly a terrible way for IETF to operate.
Honestly, if you wanted to be constructive, why did you just not share what *you* happen to know about ICANN's efforts?
[/MB]
Doug