[governance] Towards an IGC Statement on RFC 6852 "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards"
Norbert Bollow
nb at bollow.ch
Mon Jan 28 05:10:03 EST 2013
Hi Michael
Thanks for your comments! Right now I'm focusing (for the same kind of
reasons as Bill has mentioned) on our need as a Caucus to respond to
the "Stakeholders are invited to submit written contributions taking
stock of the Baku 2012 IGF meeting and looking forward - suggestions on
themes and format, for the IGF 2013 meeting." call for contributions
with a deadline of February 14. Do you think that the RFC 6852 issue
should be mentioned there? Or would it be sufficient to develop a
separate IGC statement on RFC 6852 (after we've finished the IGF taking
stock and looking forward statement), possibly supplemented with a
workshop proposal when the time for that comes?
Greetings,
Norbert
Am Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:04:29 -0800
schrieb "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>:
> 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