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

[michael gurstein]

No, if you look at the email where I provided my comments (attached) I
acknowledged and agreed with these...

As I said, I generally agree with the statements made but since this is
meant to be a statement of "core values and principles" it is equally
important to note what isn't included--a commitment to inclusiveness, a
commitment to collaboration as well as competition, a commitment to the
public interest beyond the interests of the market!

This is a shameful and shamefully partisan and narrow document and should be
disavowed by any right thinking individual or group with a commitment to the
future of the Internet as a basis for the well-being of humanity.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 9:43 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an IGC Statement on RFC 6852 "Affirmation
of the Modern Paradigm for Standards"

Did you miss this bit:

 * contribute to the creation of global communities, benefiting
        humanity.

or

 2. Adherence to principles.  Adherence to the five fundamental
      principles of standards development:

      * Due process.  Decisions are made with equity and fairness among
        participants.  No one party dominates or guides standards
        development.  Standards processes are transparent and
        opportunities exist to appeal decisions.  Processes for periodic
        standards review and updating are well defined.

      * Broad consensus.  Processes allow for all views to be considered
        and addressed, such that agreement can be found across a range
        of interests.

      * Transparency.  Standards organizations provide advance public
        notice of proposed standards development activities, the scope
        of work to be undertaken, and conditions for participation.
        Easily accessible records of decisions and the materials used in
        reaching those decisions are provided.  Public comment periods
        are provided before final standards approval and adoption.

      * Balance.  Standards activities are not exclusively dominated by
        any particular person, company or interest group.

      * Openness.  Standards processes are open to all interested and
        informed parties.

??



On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:24 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Since the intent is the articulation and propagation of "core values 
> and principles" for the design of standards for the Internet 
> presumably there is a requirement to ensure the broadest base of 
> participation and consultation which to my mind includes something 
> other than simply talking to the tech choir whether or not they might be
identified as "civil society".
>
> Note also, and quite astonishingly that included in the passage I 
> quoted was an acknowledgement that these standards are specifically 
> directed to exclude what has turned out to be the some 2/3rds or so of 
> the world's population whose governments supported the ITU position at
WCIT.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 9:06 AM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an IGC Statement on RFC 6852 
> "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards"
>
> michael gurstein [28/01/13 08:55 -0800]:
>>Russ Housley, the Chair of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 
>>at the IETF 84 Administrative Plenary in Vancouver, when introducing 
>>RFC 6852 described them as representing "our core values and our 
>>principles. We will
>
> To be fair, standards development organizations do have a substantial 
> cross section of civil society membership.
>
> The IETF for example is an organized activity of ISOC.
>
> Independent technical experts (who are also civil society, though some 
> NGO members tend to discount that) are quite active in IETF, and as 
> members of the IEEE more often than not.
>
> So - what was that again about not seeking out civil society partnership?
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [governance] RFC 6852: Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards--Some Comments
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 09:34:52 -0800
Size: 42660
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130128/661e3f6b/attachment.eml>
-------------- 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