At 02:52 PM 7/1/2010, Russ Housley wrote:
No matter where a meeting is held, we are subject to the laws of that
location. Nothing new there.
Hi Russ -
I agree with the above statement, but its really beside the point. The issue
is not that the IETF and IETF attendees are required to obey the laws of the
venue, but rather whether or not the IETF chooses to hold a meeting in a venue
where the law is sufficiently ... restrictive, draconian, capricious, ?? ... to
require the IETF to change its model of operation.
As SM pointed out, the IAOC made the following determination when considering
the Beijing venue:
Whereas the IAOC heard all arguments made on the list, and
made its determination on the ability to hold a successful
meeting i.e. run it in a fashion as we always have, using the
tools that we always have, with a critical mass of the
traditional participants, discussing the usual topics."
This was specific to the "hotel gets to cancel the meeting on a whim" issue,
but seems somewhat applicable to this topic. We're instituting a new set of
mechanisms , specific to this venue, not driven by changes requested or
suggested by the IETF. So we're not doing this as "run it in a fashon as we
always have".
I would expect this (per user login) to fade away after Beijing - unless and
until the IAOC and IETF agrees that its necessary for the longer term. And I
don't believe that discussion has been had.
With respect to this - it's too late to change the venue - and we're at the
whim of the venue governments and regulations so we're pretty much stuck. I'm
hoping that further restrictions or changes will not be imposed, but don't know
that I'm confident that will be the case.
Going back to the IAOC, I would ask whether this requirement was known at the
time of the previous Beijing discussion? If so, why wasn't it brought up at
that point in time and as part of the discussion on venue acceptability. If it
was added later, when was it added, and why wasn't the requirement made known
to the broader IETF prior to announcing the solution? Finally, I know this is a
hypothetical, but would this requirement have tipped the IAOC decision the
other way had it been known at the same time of the previous discussion?
I don't mean to pick on either you or the IAOC - you both are doing a
reasonable job steering among the shoals of the needs of the various
constituencies - just consider this an inquiry into how the IETF should decide
on how to decide whether a venue is acceptable.
Thanks - Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf