On 12/04/16 22:46, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > such an exercise is worthwhile & has been underway for a few weeks > you will see some results very soon Excellent! Thanks, S. > > Scott > >> On Apr 12, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Brian, >> >> On 12/04/16 21:32, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> Of course it is. But (compared to the IESG) the IAOC does deal with >>> a comparatively large fraction of issues that have confidential >>> aspects - budget negotiation, contract negotiations, staff issues, >>> operation security, and (with their Trustee hats on) legal issues. So >>> there are going to be more problems about community access to IAOC >>> proceedings than for the IESG. >> >> What I'm wondering is if, given the above, anyone has done an >> analysis of what the IAOC really needs to keep confidential and >> what does not need to be confidential? >> >> For example, recent events have fairly conclusively shown that >> the "cities being considered" data which is related to "contract >> negotiation" really ought not be confidential, at least in some >> aggregated form. If you go back some years, the IETF meeting >> hotel was also a not-so-well-kept secret until bookings opened, >> and when we changed that the sky did not fall. So that's another >> example. And if say the vmeet mailing list had been the place >> where it was decided that IETF-95 remote attendees would have to >> register, then we might have avoided that fuss. I can't see how >> making that decision on that public list would have hurt anything >> even though the fine meetecho support overall nvolves quite a few >> of the issues related to confidentiality you list above. >> >> I don't know if the IAOC has analysed such things more generally. >> But I hope it does do that once it's sorted out what to do about >> IETF-100. I suspect that to date, the IAOC has been treating too >> much data as confidential when that's not really needed. I figure >> ending up in that state is quite understandable, but is not in the >> end a good plan. >> >> And I don't believe we've actually heard the IAOC say that they >> do think such a general exercise is or is not worthwhile. I do >> think that some such statement now that the IAOC will consider a >> switch to a default-open posture would be very very useful and >> has not yet been made. (*) >> >> Cheers, >> S. >> >> (*) Leslie's mail [1] only referred to reviewing meeting planning, >> but not e.g. to any broader re-consideration which is what I'm >> arguing would be better. >> >> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg97545.html >> >> >> > >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>