Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:31 PM, <lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But there's another problem, too: because the IETF is a technical organization
> that publishes documents, everyone who participates in the IETF by definition
> finds it acceptable to make technical statements, otherwise they wouldn't be
> IETF participants. That's what they signed up for. They might not be willing
> to make statements in other fields, because that's not what they signed up for.
> We don't know until we ask them. We might want to do that before making
> non-technical statements in the name of the organization.

too late.

See e.g RFC3271 ('ideology', 'noble goal'), RFC1984, RFC7258...

The IETF is now a function of the Internet Society (ISOC), expressing
the policies of the Internet Society within its technical domain.

But a statement around the legal rights of same-sex partners is not "within its technical domain"? It's not within any technical domain, in fact...

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]