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

Suresh Ramasubramanian suresh at hserus.net
Mon Jan 28 08:04:21 EST 2013 

Is this really the dna of the internet?

You can find RFCs for tcp over carrier pigeons too and more seriously 
for a wide variety of other reasons (best practice, to document some 
known behavior or arrangement etc).

And quite commonly such agreements as described in this rfc are worked 
out bilaterally and/or multilaterally between different stakeholder 
groups that already work together. As long as this is seen as a  
attempt to engage the larger community rather than impose a standard, 
it becomes much more feasible if civil society groups already engaged 
in this space, like say isoc, join and contribute to the initiative. If 
this actually turns out to be something more insidious, it will find 
little or no adoption beyond the original community that it began with.

--srs (htc one x)



On 28 January 2013 5:20:25 PM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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