Just so some of the gallery is heard from on the list, I am presuming
that they are also counting the input from the survey.
I have no idea how many people responded to that, nor what they said.
I know that I indicated that I thought this was reasonable as long as
certain specific risks had been evaluated by the IAOC. (With the
implication that I trusted them to make that judgment.)
The only reason I am posting this is so that it is clear to folks that
not all the input has been on this list.
Yours,
Joel
Adam Roach wrote:
On 9/24/09 18:31, Sep 24, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
To repeat: The IAOC does not think we are in any real danger of having
our meeting disrupted or terminated due to actions which would be
deemed in violation of the clause in question. We expect a meeting in
China to be just like any other IETF meeting and we will be saying
more about this soon. Stay tuned.
Earlier in this thread, I had interpreted your comments being a
representation of your opinion on the topic. However, your later emails
imply (or, as above, expressly state) that you are speaking on behalf of
the IAOC.
If the statement of "everything will be okay, and the concerns of
several dozen IETFers are misplaced" is your personal opinion, then I
completely understand. I know that there has been a *lot* of work behind
the scenes to pull this together. It would be very hard to be involved
in that work without becoming deeply emotionally invested in the
outcome. I honestly sympathize with your position, and completely
understand why you would hold it personally.
However, if the position you have repeatedly espoused is actually a
formal statement of the IAOC's position, then I am worried about the
IAOC's motives in starting this thread. That would make it seem that the
"request for community guidance" was actually a request for a pro-forma
approval of the IAOC position. If you are speaking as an IAOC
representative, then your goal in this thread appears to have been
exclusively aimed at attempting to refute or dismiss the community's
concerns, rather than listening to them.
I don't mean to imply that there hasn't been a smattering of support for
your position. But on the balance, if I had to call consensus on this
question, it would definitely fall on the side of "there is significant
community concern about this provision."
Your statement that I quote above is a continuation of your pattern of
interaction on this thread: dismissing any concerns that anyone has
raised on the topic. And that would be fine as a personal position.
However, you are now attributing your position of wholesale dismissal to
the IAOC.
In which case I would humbly offer some advice: if the IAOC is not
willing to accept community input, it should not have solicited it.
/a
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf