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

michael gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Mon Jan 28 01:04:29 EST 2013 

Hmmm I must admit to finding the document RFC 6852 astonishing and (now that
I've been made aware of some of the background) quite shameful.

Not only does it completely ignore the public interest background and
continued value and significance of the Internet, omit any mention of
inclusion as a consideration at all levels of Internet design and
development, but it overall ignores the WSIS declaration even when there is
urging on the part of various interlocutors in the various signatory
organizations to address these range of issues.

That civil society was not consulted was clearly not an accident nor an
oversight but an attempt to create a fact on the ground leaving those with
concerns to, as Alejandro so blithely suggests, see about achieving some
sort of modifications after the fact and within an already determined
framework during downstream implementations (which I'm assuming he knows as
well as I do makes little if any sense if the issues are significant and
central such as for example issues concerning design for inclusion)--take it
or leave it.  This behaviour goes to the very core of what might be meant by
"multi-stakeholderism", who precisely are the "stakeholders" and what (and
on whose behalf) are these stakeholders "holding" the "stakes". 

And further, this puts into significant question the necessary trust which
would be a fundamental pre-condition of the kind of global Internet
governance regime which advocates of multi-stakeholderism have been so
vociferously advocating.

Finally, following on from Bill and Adam's suggestions I can think of no
more important topic to be considered at the next IGF than a consideration
of the significance of RFC 6852 in the context of the WSIS declaration and
overall Internet governance in the global public interest.

Mike

   


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:38 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an IGC Statement on RFC 6852 "Affirmation
of the Modern Paradigm for Standards"

Hi

I agree with Adam.  The IGC was created to provide input into the WSIS and
then the IGF.  If it runs off and chases other agendas of interest to co-cos
or others (cybersecurity, IETF etc.) while neglecting its original reason
for being, isn't that sort of doing a disservice to all those who've put a
lot of time and energy in over the years trying to get the IGF to work and
bake in civil society participation?  And if the IGC doesn't consistently
provide solid inputs to the IGF consultations, why should governments and
other stakeholder groups think it's a player they need to work with when
making deals, including in the MAG?  In fact, why shouldn't the UN look to
other organizations and networks to provide more civil society nominees etc.
If the IGC makes itself look irrelevant to the IGF, it will increasingly be
treated as such.

Bill




On Jan 27, 2013, at 4:01 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Please, just focus.  There's a hard deadline for a contribution to the
> IGF (which we missed last year).   Meet that and come back to the RFC.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> [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
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Governance mailing list