Subject: Re: Internet organisations coordination meeting

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 10:27:02 -0500

(sorry - retransmitting with correct address)

--On Sunday, February 16, 2014 07:20 -0500 Ted Lemon
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I think it's better to just accept that the language is
> imprecise, and think carefully about what is that we might be
> objecting to, and whether the objection _really_ makes sense
> in the context.   I guess there's about zero chance that this
> won't get discussed to death, and that's fine, but I don't
> think there's a knob to turn here.

In case it isn't obvious, I agree.  I think it is far more
important that we concentrate or energy on what is being said
(with or without disclaimers) than about social or political
correctness in terminology that almost no one outside will
interpret as significant anyway.

If we come to the conclusion that our "leaders" are not saying
what we want them to say (with or without qualifications about
who they are speaking for), then the correct remedies are to
make them better informed about what we do want said (or not
said) and, in the thoroughly unlikely event that such advice is
ineffective and that is important, direct them to stop
participating in such "leadership" meetings or other events
except possibly as silent observers.

    john

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 23:39:28 +0200

> who they are speaking for), then the correct remedies …

Right. This is why the note said, among other thing, that "there is a lot of work happening in our respective communities, driven by the participants and handled with the usual community processes".

(By the way, I do get a lot of feedback on what I say in various places. Please keep that feedback coming. It is helpful.)

Jari