Doug Ewell wrote: > no travel budget, and no realistic hope of getting one. Apparently you've something much more formally in mind than what I found in RFCs 4052/4053. I don't see why a liaison of this WG should ever be forced to _travel_ somewhere. I thought that LTRU will be disbanded in about six months after 4646bis and 4645bis are published. > I'm deeply disappointed that national origin is being > considered a criterion for choosing a liaison. That's a net-culture thing. A decade ago I was a member of FidoNet, and whatever that might be, it was organized in "zones" roughly mirroring continents, and "regions" roughly mirroring countries, and the outside world (non- Fido) was identified as "rfc822" (among others). Within that organization it was natural that "national origin" was to some degree important, some "zone 2" (EU) folks didn't like the policies from "zone 1" (US/CA), just an example. The US legal system and its traditions can be completely *_alien_* for outsiders (unless they're coming from England). With its ccTLDs ICANN has a similar issue, they've organized some of their support organizations into "regional" groups. I hate this. But I'd also hate it if somebody takes the US legal system with its software patents (example) for granted, a "patented algorithm" is plain nonsense from my POV. And I guess we've all read this (example): <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10oct06.htm> ISO also has the same issue, some regional standard bodies, and it's normal that folks with this net-cultural background consider "national origin" as important. That's how their power structure is organized. Same issue for the UN (most obviously), as soon as "regional organization" creeps in it inherits tons of bullshit. But we're used to it, and many alternatives are worse. > I suppose it is that aggressive stance, combined with > misplaced stereotypes, that makes some non-Americans think > we all support our administration. Maybe, but I'd guess it only surprised more folks that all cold war patterns with its fiction of a common transatlantic culture were just that, fictitious. And Europe has its own internal problems to solve - depending on how you count it the last seriously barbarian state of affairs is just over 60 years in the past. Or only 16 years. > I guess the State Department's preference for "Burma" and > "Burmese" over "Myanmar" is a statement of sorts about their > opposition to that country's current leadership. I don't > know what that has to do with the liaison position. Nothing. When I wanted to get rid of such old codes it didn't mean that I'm a fan of the MY-leadership. I only tried to get rid of cruft, as in Harald's big RFC decruft "experiment", and what we have now (with BU registered) was more convincing than the "date of 1766 publication" proposal. For purely technical reasons, BU was in theory valid under 1766 rules. > I tend to think of the Internet and WGs like this as true > melting pots, where I can work with someone for months or > years without regard for their race, age, national origin, > blood type, shoe size, etc. Yes. I needed some months to figure out that [I refuse to say who because it's too embarassing] is a male name. > I do not think I would automatically consider an Irish person > unqualified or inappropriate to be a liaison simply because > they were Irish. Of course not, but it's less than three days ago that I found to my great relieve that Afilias is an Irish company far away from Illinois, see above for a link with some backgrounds. Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.