+1
I think issues have been raised that should not be relevant and
that should be considered, if at all, as part of some other
question or issue. But most of the recent ones, including
Cullen's questions, seem very much in line with trying to
understand the question the IAOC decided to ask for as to give
an informed answer to it.
john
--On Monday, October 12, 2009 08:55 -0800 Melinda Shore
<shore(_at_)arsc(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The questions constitute a denial of service attack on IETF
operations.
I really don't think so. I don't even think there's
a denial of service effect, regardless of intent. The
community was asked for feedback about meeting in the
PRC given what appears to be some pretty problematic
text in the hotel contract. I don't think that questions
about what that text actually might mean in practice are
inappropriate or disruptive. To the contrary - I think
it's quite clear from the discussion that there's not
a common understanding of the contract terms, or, for that
matter, even a common understanding of the questions
that were asked in the first place.
Personally, I don't know what I think although I'm
leaning towards thinking it's a bad idea if a hotel
employee can shut the meeting down if they don't
like the content or what some random attendee says
in the hallway. But - and this is a big but - I
don't know if I'm understanding the contract correctly.
And because of my own lack of clarity around the
terms of the contract I'm grateful for Cullen's questions,
which I think will help crystallize much of what's
under discussion.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
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