[governance] Request for Comments (RFCs) as method for gathering input and formalize results of IGF work

[Max Senges]

Dear IBR community (i copy the IGC list but would appreciate if we could
have the discussion located on the IBR list)

In preparation to our (Internet Bill of Rights DC's) workshop we invite
stakeholders interested in participating and shaping our workshop to submit
ideas/proposals etc. on how to fulfill the IBR's mission: "the IBR coalition
wants to be first and foremost a platform facilitating collaboration and
dovetailing the work of the Dynamic Coalitions especially as they relate to
Rights on the Internet. It wants to build a collection and showcase for the
federated results of all the Dynamic Coalitions" [http://tinyurl.com/44qdcq]

In this context i looked into the IETF/IAB's practice of discussing and
finding consensus around Requests for Comments (RFCs). Does that method not
represent a very viable approach we can consider to produce more tangible
results at the IGF?

>From the RFC wikipedia entry:

Request for Comments (RFC) describe methods, behaviors, research, or
innovations applicable to [Internet Governance]

The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standards
authorship accomplished by individuals or small working groups has important
advantages over the more formal, committee-driven process typical of ISO and
national standards bodies.
...
Each RFC is assigned a status with regard to the Internet standardization
process. This status is one of the following: Informational, Experimental,
Best Current Practice (BCP), Standards Track, or Historic [sic].
Standards-track documents are further divided into Proposed Standard, Draft
Standard, and Internet Standard documents.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments]


I understand that the IGF is not a decision making body, but it can produce
recommendations and come up with suggestions for solutions suggesting e.g.
Rights standards (privacy, freedom of speech, etc.) through standardized
Terms of Services on platforms like gmail, facebook, etc.

The IGF-RFC would be suggestions and sites/institutions that comply with
them could use a "human readable" iconset (badge similar to the W3C standard
compliance<http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:_N2x6-vfVJfzfM:http://www.sortedsites.com/images/w3c-big.jpg>or
maybe verisign
badge<http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vansgifts.com/images/verisign.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.vansgifts.com/&h=68&w=107&sz=4&hl=en&start=3&um=1&usg=__66M6txVu5h1b1vlkD6xjXT93arA=&tbnid=iHYOcfQETJo_mM:&tbnh=54&tbnw=85&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dverisign%2Bsecured%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN>)
to make it easier for the user to understand the conditions on the given
site.

Looking forward to your thoughts

Max



---------------------------------------------------

"I am, You are, We are information"
                            Camille de Toledo - Coming of Age at the End of
History

-------------------------------------------------
Dr. Max Senges

US-Mobile: +1 650 714 9826
Spanish-Mobile: + 34 693343837

www.maxsenges.com
www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20081016/38dd9c67/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance