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

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Mon Jan 28 06:37:34 EST 2013 

It would be a good subject for a workshop.  And can imagine it might
be a topic raised in both sessions on enhanced cooperation and
Internet principles.  But not a stand alone session given the other
priorities.

Adam


On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:19 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Norbert,
>
> I think that the issue warrants both--a session at the IGF and a sign on
> letter from the IGC (which I've agreed to co-draft with you...
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:10 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
> Cc: 'William Drake'; 'Adam Peake'; Alejandro Pisanty
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an IGC Statement on RFC 6852 "Affirmation
> of the Modern Paradigm for Standards"
>
> 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