RE: [Gendispatch] Re: Last IETF ever in China ?! Re: Agenda request: draft-rescorla-anonymous-network

I didn't chime in on this thread during the IETF meeting because my plate was full then, but wanted to add a few thoughts while they were still fresh in my mind...

First, I wanted to thank both the staff and local sponsors for running the best-organized IETF meeting in some time.  For instance, there was a fun social event with sufficient capacity for all to attend - something that hasn't happened in years.  The working group meetings were productive and the numerous side meetings facilitated discussions that will result in future work.  There were many other details that just worked and extras organized for the attendees, such as local and Hong Kong tours, that we don't normally have.  As I see it, those of you who didn't attend in person missed out.

Also speaking from personal experience, the IETF network was easy to join and use - far easier, for instance, than network access at many RSA Security conferences, which required downloading certificates for network authentication.  I also observed that I appeared to have unfettered access to any sites of my choosing - something that wasn't true when using the Shangri-La hotel network.

Thanks are due to those in China who organized and hosted such a successful event for us.  If I were one of the organizers, I would personally find the subject line "Last IETF ever in China" somewhat disrespectful and disparaging of the significant efforts that were clearly made to ensure a successful meeting for the IETF.  None of the local organizers have spoken up saying that, but I can only imagine how it must make them feel.  I'd therefore ask others to join me in thanking them for a job well done.  I look forward to meeting there again.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: S Moonesamy <[email protected]> 
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 3:56 PM
To: George Michaelson <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Re: Last IETF ever in China ?! Re: Agenda request: draft-rescorla-anonymous-network

Hi George, All,
At 03:28 AM 02-04-2026, George Michaelson wrote:
>I'd say this phrase is not one we should carry into the future.
>
>Its not helpful to process. I didn't stand as a politician and I'm not 
>carrying forward a political agenda. I'm appointed. I reflect on that, 
>and the difference between my personal beliefs and positional 
>expectations a lot.
>
>My ideal situation on this stuff is that the LLC and documented process 
>means approval for a location is a formalism. I know that's unlikely to 
>emerge, there's always a decision to be made, and justified, when 
>weighing up disparate criteria.
>
>I will probably disappoint a lot of ietf participants if I say I'm not 
>a fan of protest based reasons to avoid a venue.
>
>I think it's a bad look for an SDO.

The text quoted above stated that "It's not helpful to the process".  The LLC is mentioned further down.  My comment was not specifically about any (LLC) documented process.

I'll disclose that I previously argued for the "right to vote".  I provided a rationale; it is in the IETF records.

I would look at political leadership from a accountability angle.  The political part is that a community could ask me questions.  The practice I am familiar with is to respond their questions or respond to their concerns.  As a comment for people who might not be familiar with the history of this organization, there was a time when not all active participants had the right to volunteer to be on a Nomination Committee.

A political agenda can mean different things.  It could, for example, mean that a person is paying attention to an issue instead the person mentioning it to create an impression that he/she is interested in solving the issue.  It could also mean prioritizing issues to satisfy an interest group even if the solution is detrimental to the organization.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy