But there's another problem, too: because the IETF is a technical organization
that publishes documents, everyone who participates in the IETF by definition
finds it acceptable to make technical statements, otherwise they wouldn't be
IETF participants. That's what they signed up for. They might not be willing
to make statements in other fields, because that's not what they signed up
for.
We don't know until we ask them. We might want to do that before making
non-technical statements in the name of the organization.
too late.
See e.g RFC3271 ('ideology', 'noble goal'), RFC1984, RFC7258...
The IETF is now a function of the Internet Society (ISOC), expressing
the policies of the Internet Society within its technical domain.
(Because the IETF famously couldn't govern itself, and if there's
just one thing that ISOC is all about, it's governing other things.)
If you're not willing to make a statement on a non-technical field,
ISOC will decide what you think, and make that statement for you.
ISOC "acts as a public relations channel for the times
that one of the "I" groups wants to say something to the press.
The ISOC is one of the major unsung heroes of the Internet."
-- says ISOC, singing its praises in the Tao.
L.
this is a bit like learning the truth
of the Bible from the Bible.
Lloyd Wood lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, 28 May 2016, 2:14
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:34 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
if we start to make
decisions about what it is appropriate or not for us to do based
on what some group of critics might find useful, that is the
most purely political decision-making of all.
I think it's not so much a question of making decisions based on which group of
critics might say what. It's which decisions and statements we make.
The IETF is a technical organization, and debating technical issues is within
its charter and its expertise. If the IETF makes statements in other areas,
then it will be making statements that are outside its charter and area of
expertise. Due to lack of expertise, those statements are likely to be less
effective than those of other organizations that *are* in their area of
expertise, and if we are unlucky, they could turn out to be poorly worded or
backfire.
But there's another problem, too: because the IETF is a technical organization
that publishes documents, everyone who participates in the IETF by definition
finds it acceptable to make technical statements, otherwise they wouldn't be
IETF participants. That's what they signed up for. They might not be willing to
make statements in other fields, because that's not what they signed up for. We
don't know until we ask them. We might want to do that before making
non-technical statements in the name of the organization.
Again, this is separate from debates on our internal codes of conduct. Those
are discussions that participants have to have or at least be affected by,
because the organization cannot operate without codes of conduct.