[governance] Towards an IGC Statement on RFC 6852 "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards"

[Norbert Bollow]

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Norbert, thanks for trying, but to be frank, why bother?

Because standards development is very much at the core of Internet
governance, and it is important for IGC to engage, to the extent that
consensus is possible, also on such core issues, and not just on more
peripheral questions like e.g. the choice of discussion topics for the
next Internet Governance Forum.

> In the couple of days since RFC 6852 was mentioned we've seen almost
> equal support/opposition for statement.

That is not accurate. We have seen praise for RFC 6852 as well as
criticism. This is no reason to not at least try to incorporate both in
a statement.

> And if the caucus does produce something will it make any difference?

That will depend on the actual content of the statement, and on how
convincing it is written, and on whether it will get promoted in
contexts where it can make a difference. The Caucus has several members
who have the right kind of contacts. 

> Could we please focus on core issues.

This is a core issue.

Greetings,
Norbert

> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
> >
> > Let's develop an IGC Statement on this RFC 6852 "Affirmation of the
> > Modern Paradigm for Standards" [1].
> > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6852
> >
> > I'll be willing to serve as editor if no-one else volunteers, but
> > I'd prefer for someone else to take on this role.
> >
> > Who would like to volunteer?
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> > Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
> >
> >> > It is a good document.
> >>
> >> No, it's not.
> >>
> >> It refers only to business uses of the Internet, as if the Internet
> >> were not used for many other things. It was recorded as a comment
> >> by some IETF members
> >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iab/trac/ticket/193> but was
> >> ignored.
> >>
> >> It calls for access to the standard documents but it is
> >> hypocritical since one of the signers, IEEE, does not allow it
> >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iab/trac/ticket/213> (ITU, the
> >> main target of this RFC, does distribute its standards online for
> >> a few years.)
> >>
> >> It refers to open and transparent processes but the IETF members
> >> discovered this document when it was already signed, and
> >> impossible to modify.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t