Subject: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:37:05 -0500

It has come to the attention of the Applications Area Directors
that one or more Applications area working groups have elected
to not meet in Adelaide, and instead to hold an "interim meeting"
in the United States, presumably because of distance and/or cost issues.

IETF is an international organization, and it is IETF's longstanding 
practice to hold its meetings in various locations around the planet.
This serves both to encourage wider participation in IETF and also
to more fairly distribute travel costs and inconvenience (over time) 
among all participants.  The scheduleing of an interim WG meeting in 
the US in lieu of a WG meeting in Adelaide undermines this policy.  
This is insulting to non-US participants of IETF (many of whom have 
attended meetings in the US for years), embarassing to IETF as 
a whole, and a threat to IETF's international stature.

Even if a working group has few participants outside the United
States, a working group does not work in isolation from other
working groups.  Attendance at IETF meetings is an invaluable 
mechanism for cross-group collaboration.  

RFC 2418 states:

   Interim meetings are subject to the
   same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation,
   and process, which apply to other working group meetings.

Since normal working group meetings require advance notification
via email to the entire IETF list, and the process for getting a meeting
slot involves prior approval of the Area Directors, the same
requirements apply to interim working group meetings.  Part of the 
reason for prior approval being required is to ensure that the 
locations of the meetings are not being chosen to favor certain 
participants over others.  

There have been several violations of this policy since publication
of RFC 2418.

Therefore,

- All interim meetings within the Applications Area which were not
  previously and explicitly approved by the Applications Area Directors, 
  are hereby cancelled.

- No Applications Area group will hold any interim meeting prior
  to April 15.

- No Applications Area group which does not hold a meeting in 
  Adelaide, will hold any interim meeting prior to July 31.
  (i.e. prior to the Pittsburg IETF meeting)

- This applies to all face to face meetings held for the purpose 
  of conducting working group discussion and to which the working 
  group is invited, even if labelled "informal" or otherwise 
  labelled to distinguish them from official working group meetings.

- Exceptions to this policy may be made for recently chartered groups,
  but Area Director approval is still required for such groups to
  schedule interim meetings.

for the Applications Area Directors,

Keith Moore

---

From: Kathy Dally <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:00 -0500

Hi Keith!

Your message and actions are right on!!!!  In addition to the reasons
and consequences you mentioned, such behavior opens the IETF to
restraint of trade challenges at least in the U.S.

Thanks,
Kathy Dally
MITRE Corp.

---

From: Kathy Dally <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:00 -0500

Hi Keith!

Thanks,
Kathy Dally
MITRE Corp.

---

From: Mart Nurmet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:20:44 -0600

Keith:

How do I go about geting the schedule for the meetings for the rest of the
year?

I'm new to this forum and will be the Inet Technologies representative in
the future.

Best regards,
Mart Nurmet
972 543-3791

---

From: Mart Nurmet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:20:44 -0600

Keith:

Best regards,
Mart Nurmet
972 543-3791

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:14:26 -0800 (PST)

% Keith:
% 
% How do I go about geting the schedule for the meetings for the rest of the
% year?
% 
% I'm new to this forum and will be the Inet Technologies representative in
% the future.
% 
% Best regards,
% Mart Nurmet
% 972 543-3791

I'm not keith but can answer your question.

	www.ietf.org

and note that the IETF is composed of indivduals, not corporations. 
You should not presume to "represent" a corporate entity within the
IETF. Your just the best engineer you can be.

--bill

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:14:26 -0800 (PST)

% Keith:
% 

	www.ietf.org

--bill

---

From: Tim Salo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:22:33 -0600 (CST)

> From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs
> To: [email-masked] (Mart Nurmet)
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:14:26 -0800 (PST)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 	[...]

I believe that whether an individual is expected to represent the 
interests of an organization is largely a matter between that individual
and the organization, (regardless of what the IETF says).  The IETF may
recognize individuals, not organizations, but that's far different than
the IETF promising participants that they can say anything they want without
the prospect of repercussions when they return home.

The original poster may, in a very real sense, actually be representing a
company, whether the IETF wants to believe it or not.

Of course, that leads to the rather interesting dilemma that we don't know
whether an individual is speaking on behalf or his or her self or on behalf
of an organization, (again, even if we tell that person that _we_ know
which it is).

-tjs

---

From: Tim Salo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:22:33 -0600 (CST)

-tjs

---

From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:51:44 -0500

Why does the IETF registration form ask for a company name?

---

From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:51:44 -0500

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:17:45 -0500

--On Tuesday, 15 February, 2000 15:22 -0600 Tim Salo 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Of course, that leads to the rather interesting dilemma that
> we don't know whether an individual is speaking on behalf or
> his or her self or on behalf of an organization, (again, even
> if we tell that person that _we_ know which it is).

FWIW, in some other standards bodies, there is a policy that, if 
one wants to (or is constrained to) speak on behalf of an 
organization, or arrives with instructions as to what to say 
that the individual cannot change after hearing arguments in the 
meeting, those restrictions/relationships must be disclosed. 
The rule is unenforceable, but provides some protection to the 
individual (especially in "my company is full of idiots, but 
please don't mistake me for one" situations) and for the 
standards group.

   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:17:45 -0500

john

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:33:52 -0500

It is traditional that most IETF meeting attendees have given the
organization they are affiliated with for identification purposes,
whether it is an educational institution, government, other non-profit
group or company.

Donald

PS: I don't see "being international" as a binary thing.  Or at least
I don't know of any orgnaization, including the UN, that you can claim
is "perfectly" international.  After all, there are plenty of
languages that are not official UN languages and there are always
distinctions based on whether you are privileged to have a permanent
seat on the Security Council or have the UN HQ in your country, etc.

The primary concern in the IETF is producing good protocols.  I would
hope that anyone whose primary concern is how international the IETF
is would find more fertile ground in some other organization.

From:  "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>
Date:  Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:51:44 -0500
To:  [email-masked]
In-Reply-To:  <[email-masked]>
References:  <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:33:52 -0500

Donald

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:40:21 -0800

>How do I go about geting the schedule for the meetings for the rest of the

If you go to the IETF web site, click on "Meetings", and click on "list of
future meetings", you will find a pointer the file
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:40:21 -0800

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:46:15 +0000

>of an organization, (again, even if we tell that person that _we_ know

The IETF philosophy has always been that a bunch of engineers get together
via IETF to solve technical problems, largely aside from pecuniary and petty
corporate interests.  

This does break down on occasion, but having this philosophy has (IMHO) helped 
the IETF be more productive than a lot of the alternative standards bodies,
where people absolutely do represent a specific entity.  This philosophy has
also helped ensure that better technical solutions arise than would be the case
otherwise, IMHO.

The IETF is far from perfect, but its the best setup we've found so far.

Regards,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:46:15 +0000

Regards,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Jim Gettys)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:10:34 -0800 (PST)

Bravo!
--
Jim Gettys
Technology and Corporate Development
Compaq Computer Corporation
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Jim Gettys)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:10:34 -0800 (PST)

Bravo!