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

michael gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Mon Jan 28 06:50:25 EST 2013 

Hmmm... an attempt to unilaterally hardwire a deeply flawed and highly
questionable ideological position into the DNA of the Internet and in the
process raising serious issues about the nature of multi-stakeholderism and
and the future of Internet governance overall doesn't warrant "a stand alone
session given other priorities"... 

What other priority could possibly be higher?
 
M

-----Original Message-----
From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:38 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an IGC Statement on RFC 6852 "Affirmation
of the Modern Paradigm for Standards"

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