> 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... I'm pretty sure there's a 'be liberal in what you accept, but conservative in what you do' aphorism in there struggling to get out. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________ From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> To: lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016, 13:38 Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 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...