On 23/05/16 22:13, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I raise this in particular because Cisco happens to be the host for > IETF 100. In chatting with folks around the company, it didn't seem > to me that anyone had been contacted by the IAOC about the > possibility of helping to offset costs associated with relocating the > meeting, prior to you sending your mail last week. I think that is a point that the IAOC can and really must specifically address. I don't need to know the content of the communication between the IAOC and the meeting sponsor, but the IAOC do I think need to tell us if there was communication between the IAOC (or a subcommittee of, or other body reporting to, the IAOC) and the meeting sponsor for IETF-100 about the controversy over this meeting and the potential practicality and/or costs for switching it to another venue. I don't ask in an attempt to catch folks out or cast aspersions as to individual folks' capabilities, so I'm not trying to apportion blame. I'm really wondering if maybe a) the IAOC don't know the answer, (thus calling into question whether internal IAOC structures are actually blocking transparency), or b) if the IAOC does know that discussion with the IETF-100 sponsor happened, then I just don't get why that wasn't communicated to the community already (calling into question the apparent intent to switch to a more open mode of operation), or c) if there was no such communication, then...really? And doesn't that seem to imply that structures within/reporting-to the IAOC don't seem to be sensitive to community concerns or even IAOC statements? I hope there's a (d) answer though, as none of (a), (b) or (c) reflect very well on how the IAOC is operating. (And again, I'm not trying to criticise any individual - I think if there are such problems, they are likely inherent how the IAOC-confidential-by-default setup and similar systems naturally evolve over a decade or so.) S.
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>