Hi Andrew, At 01:45 AM 8/19/2019, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Again, with my ISOC hat on. Indeed, it is, and it is nowhere a part of the draft under discussion, so I don't understand what the problem is _for this draft_.
I read that paragraph as related to an internal policy based on a message which was sent to this mailing list. If you say that it is not related, I cannot do anything about it as I don't know what the actual internal policy is. To be clear, I am not asking for details about any internal policy as I understand internal to be internal to an organization.
That seems to me to be implying something rather unpleasant without coming out and making a claim. If you are claiming that there is some
That is an opinion which I expressed. It is not a claim that your organization is doing it as this Last Call is about a future relationship.
problem, I would appreciate it if you would come out and say what problem you think there is. Otherwise, I think you are smearing the
Let's say that Company A sends employees to participate in an IETF discussion. A majority of the people involved in a controversial decision is from Company A. If the employees from Company A did not disclose their affiliation, it would be difficult whether there could be a possible issue in future. If that issue were to occur, the WG Chair will hear all sort of claims, e.g. Company B does that and the WG Chair did not say anything about it.
character of Internet Society staff participating in the IETF, without any justification. I don't especially care if people deprecate my character, but I don't think the rest of the Internet Society staff ought to be smeared that way.
My interaction with other Internet Society employees within the IETF is most probably zero over the last few years as I don't recall having any discussion topics in common with them. As all the IETF mailing list are archived and searchable, I'll leave it to any IETF participant to point out whether that is untrue.
in the (sub)thread appeared to as well. Are you now saying you think Mike's position (either 2 or 2') is correct? (And if so, could you just state it plainly, please?)
I don't see it as being about whether the position is correct or not. I unfortunately cannot state anything beyond that.
Regards, S. Moonesamy
