[AfrICANN-discuss] IETF89 starts tomorrow March 2nd in London with ICANN as a host: Some interesting reading and remote participation.

[SM]

Hi Seun,
At 07:43 02-03-2014, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>You are correct assuming by "involved" you mean in terms of skills 
>since ICANN has a broader scope than IETF which is rather more technical

I used "more people involved" to mean more people interested in 
ICANN.  There was a discussion recently about whether ICANN was 
responsible for the security of the internet.  It was pointed out 
that the organization had a scope which is even less than security of DNS.

IETF discussions are highly technical.  For example, a network 
engineer would find it difficult to contribute to the 
discussions.  The discussions are difficult to follow as most of the 
people taking part in them already know the past discussions about the topic.

>Sure if you see my initial mail, you will see that i also raise the 
>doubts, but hey "Rome was not built in a day" there was a time when 
>most AfNOG resource people were "imported" but now afnog can boost 
>of as much resource people (through the help of the initial resource 
>people ofcourse). Although looking at it from the cost perspective, 
>i agree that

I am not disagreeing with what you wrote.  I would not compare it to AfNOG.

>  many people who normally attend IETF may not be able to come to 
> Africa, and perhaps that could result to "low" success. So maybe 
> this can be a gradual thing before the main IETF event. Perhaps 
> ISOC can perhaps take advantage of events like ISOC day, to not 
> just talk IETF in theory but pick 2 or 3 currently active 
> drafts(which could be interesting to our current regional needs) to 
> discuss at the event.

People would call it a "failure".  This can mean never having a 
meeting again as people will point out that the previous attempt was 
a failure.  It is difficult to determine where to start.

>As you may notice that i wrote to yourself and Dr Lisse ;)

Sorry, I should have not have written it like that.

>Okay apologies for using that word as i am sure it may have been 
>mis-interpreted perhaps using the phrase "chartered by ISOC" is better :)

No. :-)

It is a separate organization.

Regards,
-sm