Re: Transparency of IAOC

On 12/04/16 22:46, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> such an exercise is worthwhile & has been underway for a few weeks 
> you will see some results very soon
Excellent!

Thanks,
S.

> Scott
>
> > On Apr 12, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Stephen Farrell 
> > <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > On 12/04/16 21:32, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > Of course it is. But (compared to the IESG) the IAOC does deal with
> > > a comparatively large fraction of issues that have confidential
> > > aspects - budget negotiation, contract negotiations, staff issues,
> > > operation security, and (with their Trustee hats on) legal issues. So
> > > there are going to be more problems about community access to IAOC
> > > proceedings than for the IESG.
> > What I'm wondering is if, given the above, anyone has done an
> > analysis of what the IAOC really needs to keep confidential and
> > what does not need to be confidential?
> >
> > For example, recent events have fairly conclusively shown that
> > the "cities being considered" data which is related to "contract
> > negotiation" really ought not be confidential, at least in some
> > aggregated form. If you go back some years, the IETF meeting
> > hotel was also a not-so-well-kept secret until bookings opened,
> > and when we changed that the sky did not fall. So that's another
> > example. And if say the vmeet mailing list had been the place
> > where it was decided that IETF-95 remote attendees would have to
> > register, then we might have avoided that fuss. I can't see how
> > making that decision on that public list would have hurt anything
> > even though the fine meetecho support overall nvolves quite a few
> > of the issues related to confidentiality you list above.
> >
> > I don't know if the IAOC has analysed such things more generally.
> > But I hope it does do that once it's sorted out what to do about
> > IETF-100. I suspect that to date, the IAOC has been treating too
> > much data as confidential when that's not really needed. I figure
> > ending up in that state is quite understandable, but is not in the
> > end a good plan.
> >
> > And I don't believe we've actually heard the IAOC say that they
> > do think such a general exercise is or is not worthwhile. I do
> > think that some such statement now that the IAOC will consider a
> > switch to a default-open posture would be very very useful and
> > has not yet been made. (*)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.
> >
> > (*) Leslie's mail [1] only referred to reviewing meeting planning,
> > but not e.g. to any broader re-consideration which is what I'm
> > arguing would be better.
> >
> > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg97545.html

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature