Subject: [Raven] Re: Two Observations on the IETF Plenary Wiretap Vote

From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 12:54:43 -0500

I was sitting in the rightmost third of the auditorium, near the front. To
the left of me I very quickly counted 12 hands raised for the
shall-we-support-this vote. A quick glance behind and to the right of me
showed maybe ten, so I reported it as less than 25. I didn't have as much
time to count those before they disappeared, so I could be off a bit, but
it's that order of magnitude.

Other folks like Dave Banisar and David Sobel came up with the same number
independently, if I recall our post-mortem conversations correctly.

Abstentions were harder to guess at, since the handraising period did not
seem to last as long. But that number was between the number of yes and the
no votes, though I think closer to the yes's.

-Declan

At 09:35 11/13/1999 -0500, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
>Robert Hettinga <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>There have been some discussions on these lists both about the IETF vote
>>against wiretapping the internet...
>
>I've now heard about four or five differing versions of the voting at IETF.
>Declan McCullagh counted less than 25 hands for wiretapping (Hettinga
>agreed "I, personally, stood up and looked around, and "yes" votes were as
>scarce on the ground as our President's virtue is during a government
>shutdown"). Scott Bradner counted based on Declan's room count approx 120
>or based on Robert Hettinga's count 225.  How could Bradner be so off.
>Did anyone film the event perchance?
>
>Regards,  Matt-
>
>
>
>From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
>Subject:      Re: IETF Consensus on Wiretapping??????
>To: [email-masked]
>
>I wrote about this in my article. I was there. So were at least two other
>journalist, from the Washington Post and the NY Times.
>
>There might have been 700-800 people in the room. I counted less than 25
>hands raised to support the support-wiretap proposal.
>
>Whether that is "rough consensus" is left as an exercise to the nigglers.
>
>-Declan
>
>
>###
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2392616,00.html?chkpt=zdnnstop
>
>"Scott Bradner, director of the Transport Area of the IETF -- where the
>motion was originally proposed -- estimates that 55 percent of the members
>answered 'no,' another 15 percent said 'yes,' and the rest abstained."
>###
>
>
>
>
>**************************************************************************
>Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
>Send a blank message to: [email-masked] with the words subscribe FA
>on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month)
>Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH  43229
>Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/
>**************************************************************************

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

---

From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 13:11:01 -0500

It is unlikely that there were 2500 people in the room at any one time
during any part of the week. According to the sales department at the Omni
(202 234 0700) that ballroom seats 2300 people theater-style with every
seat used.

By the time the voting happened, many seats had opened, and even after the
discussion started and I decided to sit down I was easily able to get an
aisle seat. My calculation of people was based on an estimate of mean
number of people per row, then calculating rows*columns.

Robert is probably right about people getting bored, because the discussion
did drag on. But wiretap critics told me their opponents had stayed just to
speak during the vote and then left immediately thereafter, bags in tow.

-Declan

At 03:12 11/13/1999 -0500, Robert Hettinga wrote:
>I also think there was more like a thousand, maybe 1500, people in the
>room at the time, and, if they'd done the damn thing earlier in the
>evening, they would have probably had 2000-2500 people voting instead, as
>it was standing room only when the meeting started, and about 3/4 full
>when the vote itself was taken. I'd like to think that all those people
>were just bored, instead of running away from a fight, and so I will.
>:-).