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...
I'm pretty sure there's a 'be liberal in what you accept,
but conservative in what you do' aphorism
in there struggling to get out.
Lloyd Wood lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com>
To: lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>; IETF Discussion
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2016, 13:38
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
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...