ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

2016-05-30 22:38:41
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:31 PM, 
<lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:

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.


But a statement around the legal rights of same-sex partners is not "within
its technical domain"? It's not within any technical domain, in fact...
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>