Cullen Jennings wrote:
I have done a little digging around on the questions I asked and thought
I might summarize some of the responses I got back to my email.
More inline .... Note all the comments below do not refer to the
"Special Administrative Regions". I strongly support Ted's suggestion
that running the meeting in one of theses zones would eliminate the
concerns I have raised.
At its base, your exercise seems to be an effort at doing the IAOC's job for it.
It's their job to research venue details and make choices and to ensure the
logistics for productive IETF meetings. The IETF as a body is not likely to
become experts in the details of holding a meeting in China. Nor is it our job to.
The IAOC came to us with a very specific question. To the extent we pursue
other questions, we dilute the help we can give them to resolve this one,
difficult issue that they've asked us about. By virtue of the public ruckus a
debate on the IETF list can cause, it also could de-stabilize the considerable
10-year effort that has been put in, to get arrangements to their current point.
It's not that suggesting paths for resolving the issue they raised is
unproductive or inappropriate. It's that pursuing ancillary details, paths and
The suggestion to have the meeting in a China SAR has already been made.
Whether it can pragmatically resolve the issue we've been asked about is
something the IAOC can juggle best.
If the goal of your effort is to review and change IAOC responsibilities or
procedures for site selection and event management, then that ought to be
pursued independently of the China meeting discussion.
Ietf mailing list