Two things brought up in this thread disturb me. First, there seems
to be the idea that we should be choosing where IETFs are held for
political purposes--to make statements for or against certain
governments. I'm not quite sure this was said or implied, but if it
was, I'm made a bit uncomfortabl
Hear hear!
I debated posting after the fingerprint thread, and then again after the Cancun
comment. Sam's email accurately sums up my own view.
Further, as the host of IETF61, we explored at least four possible venues, one of
which was Ottawa - too bloody awkward to get to, since there are ver
Hi Ben and Sam,
Ben Crosby wrote:
Hear hear!
I debated posting after the fingerprint thread, and then again after the Cancun
> comment. Sam's email accurately sums up my own view.
Further, as the host of IETF61, we explored at least four possible venues,
> one of which was Ottawa - too bloody awkwa
[[ Resending the comment to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] illegitimately *) automatically
rejects the posts by non-subscribers.
*) http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt
]]
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, The IESG wrote:
> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Transp
Hi,
I can follow and understand a lot of the discussions about not getting
involved into political issues, but I cannot follow the discussion about
not going to nice place, since people could get attracted by the
surroundings and not the IETF.
First, people are old enough to focus on their work
Hi,
Sam Hartman wrote:
Two things brought up in this thread disturb me. First, there seems
to be the idea that we should be choosing where IETFs are held for
political purposes--to make statements for or against certain
governments. I'm not quite sure this was said or implied, but if it
was, I'm
