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

[Lee W McKnight]

Re: we do have a few days in which to submit a statement for the IGF
open consultation and to (hopefully) support CS MAG members in their
discussions. 

What is the plan/who is drafting that statement? Did I hear Adam volunteer? ; )

Re an IGC standards statement, I will pitch in to a (2nd) draft, especially since as noted I have my own motivations and uses for a coherent IGC statement. As to who is the fairest of them all/most open and transparent standards org; traditionally IETF would be first by a mile or several kilometers. But it isn't really a beauty context and as the statement itself notes there are various aspects to be considered.  

thanks,

Lee

________________________________________
From: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] on behalf of Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:39 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an IGC Statement on RFC 6852 "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards"

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

In the couple of days since RFC 6852 was mentioned we've seen almost
equal support/opposition for statement.  And if the caucus does
produce something will it make any difference? Very likely no.

But we do have a few days in which to submit a statement for the IGF
open consultation and to (hopefully) support CS MAG members in their
discussions. Could we please focus on core issues.

Thanks,

Adam





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