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

Mon Jan 28 19:58:32 EST 2013

The Google translation of Bortzmeyer's blog (below) presents some very interesting points including that 

OpenStand Tripartite Declaration (RFC 6852) was signed August 29, 2012, without discussion within the IETF, whose members have discovered the subsequent text. As the statement was the result of a multilateral agreement, it could not be changed thereafter. RFC takes its text literally, and all the normal discussion of an RFC has been short-circuited: there's been calls for comment, but the comments were completely ignored.

Is this the type of multi-stakeholder global Internet governance regime as facilitated by the "Internet community" that the USG, ISOC and their allies on this list and elsewhere have been promoting so strenuously as a model of bottom-up democracy?

M

RFC 6852: Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards

Date of publication of RFC: January 2013

Author (s) RFC: R. Housley (IETF Chair), S. Mills (IEEE-SA President), J. Jaffe (W3C CEO), B. Aboba (IAB Chair), L. St.Amour (ISOC President and CEO) For information first writing this article January 26, 2013

During the preparations for the WCIT, organized by ITU in Dubai in December 2012, one of the proposals made in the ITU bureaucracy was made mandatory, in one way or another, the technical standards issued by ITU. This project has apparently not been finally adopted, but it sparked a reaction from other SDO, which saw no reason why the ITU have such a privilege. Three of the SDO, IEEE, IETF and the W3C have signed a common declaration, called OpenStand which this RFC reproduces the text.

It includes the ITU's technical standards (such as X.25 or X.400) are now quite forgotten, and in the Internet today, there remains hardly ITU standards are used (X. ASN.1 509 and must be one of the few exceptions, and again, X.509 is threatened by RFC 6698). Get an international treaty and by law, that network actors have refused is tempting. One of the main points of the Tripartite Declaration of other SDO is the adoption of standards must continue to be based on voluntary: it deploys on the real network standards that make sense, and not from any of delirium Theodule committees of the ITU, disconnected from reality for a long time.

RFC 6852: Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards

Date of publication of RFC: January 2013

Author (s) RFC: R. Housley (IETF Chair), S. Mills (IEEE-SA President), J. Jaffe (W3C CEO), B. Aboba (IAB Chair), L. St.Amour (ISOC President and CEO) For information first writing this article January 26, 2013

During the preparations for the WCIT, organized by ITU in Dubai in December 2012, one of the proposals made in the ITU bureaucracy was made mandatory, in one way or another, the technical standards issued by ITU. This project has apparently not been finally adopted, but it sparked a reaction from other SDO, which saw no reason why the ITU have such a privilege. Three of the SDO, IEEE, IETF and the W3C have signed a common declaration, called OpenStand which this RFC reproduces the text.

It includes the ITU's technical standards (such as X.25 or X.400) are now quite forgotten, and in the Internet today, there remains hardly ITU standards are used (X. ASN.1 509 and must be one of the few exceptions, and again, X.509 is threatened by RFC 6698). Get an international treaty and by law, that network actors have refused is tempting. One of the main points of the Tripartite Declaration of other SDO is the adoption of standards must continue to be based on voluntary: it deploys on the real network standards that make sense, and not from any of delirium Theodule committees of the ITU, disconnected from reality for a long time.

OpenStand Tripartite Declaration was signed August 29, 2012, without discussion within the IETF, whose members have discovered the subsequent text. As the statement was the result of a multilateral agreement, it could not be changed thereafter. RFC takes its text literally, and all the normal discussion of an RFC has been short-circuited: there's been calls for comment, but the comments were completely ignored.

Other organizations have since signed this statement, one can find the list on the official website OpenStand.

What does this statement (Section 2)? After a preamble is mentioned that the business (as if the Internet was not used in a myriad of other activities, as noted in comment # 193), the global markets and competition, the statement said five points. The first clause is a kind of "non-interference in the internal affairs of other SDOs," where each signatory agrees to abide by the rules of others. The second is adherence to five principles:

     Process of developing standards based on clear and documented processes, without arbitrary

     Looking for as broad an agreement as possible, taking into account the interests of all

     Public visibility of ongoing work, eg with calls for comments that are public (note that the development of OpenStand statement did not follow this excellent principle)

     A balance between stakeholders, so as to avoid excessive weight of a specific group (ITU is dominated by states allied with traditional telco operators, but other SDOs have in common that they are reserved for professional the single user is not shown)

     Openness to all the volunteers who want to participate.

The third point of the statement is a potpourri of points desirable in technical standards produced (eg they enable interoperability, resilience, scalability, etc).

The fourth is the most hypocritical: the availability of technical standards. But if dinosaurs such as ISO or AFNOR do not always publish their standards on the Internet, if organizations like ETSI impose ridiculous restrictions (pre-registration only three standards available), ITU, after long hesitation, finally move to the twenty-first century and its standards are now freely available. By cons, a signatory of OpenStand, the IEEE does not always ... There was talk to the Tripartite Declaration a sentence like "The text is made available standards of to all, free of charge or at low cost," or, more blurred, a word about the importance of a free distribution of standards (with the delicious ambiguity of the English language the word free) but it was rejected, otherwise the IEEE did not sign. It is on this point that the character OpenStand politician is clearer.

The same point refers to the delicate issue of intellectual appropriation, which affects both standards. Policy differences between the three signatories (and even within each signatory, including the IETF), makes the statement is very vague, accepting both the technology completely free as sealed by a patent, the only condition, very general, the licenses are FRAND.

Finally, the fifth point of the statement is the importance of voluntary adoption of standards based on technical merit and not on a fiat, as indicated at the beginning of this article.

Other organizations have since signed this statement, one can find the list on the official website OpenStand.

What does this statement (Section 2)? After a preamble is mentioned that the business (as if the Internet was not used in a myriad of other activities, as noted in comment # 193), the global markets and competition, the statement said five points. The first clause is a kind of "non-interference in the internal affairs of other SDOs," where each signatory agrees to abide by the rules of others. The second is adherence to five principles:

     Process of developing standards based on clear and documented processes, without arbitrary

     Looking for as broad an agreement as possible, taking into account the interests of all

     Public visibility of ongoing work, eg with calls for comments that are public (note that the development of OpenStand statement did not follow this excellent principle)

     A balance between stakeholders, so as to avoid excessive weight of a specific group (ITU is dominated by states allied with traditional telco operators, but other SDOs have in common that they are reserved for professional the single user is not shown)

     Openness to all the volunteers who want to participate.

The third point of the statement is a potpourri of points desirable in technical standards produced (eg they enable interoperability, resilience, scalability, etc).

The fourth is the most hypocritical: the availability of technical standards. But if dinosaurs such as ISO or AFNOR do not always publish their standards on the Internet, if organizations like ETSI impose ridiculous restrictions (pre-registration only three standards available), ITU, after long hesitation, finally move to the twenty-first century and its standards are now freely available. By cons, a signatory of OpenStand, the IEEE does not always ... There was talk to the Tripartite Declaration a sentence like "The text is made available standards of to all, free of charge or at low cost," or, more blurred, a word about the importance of a free distribution of standards (with the delicious ambiguity of the English language the word free) but it was rejected, otherwise the IEEE did not sign. It is on this point that the character OpenStand politician is clearer.

The same point refers to the delicate issue of intellectual appropriation, which affects both standards. Policy differences between the three signatories (and even within each signatory, including the IETF), makes the statement is very vague, accepting both the technology completely free as sealed by a patent, the only condition, very general, the licenses are FRAND.

Finally, the fifth point of the statement is the importance of voluntary adoption of standards based on technical merit and not on a fiat, as indicated at the beginning of this article.

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:53 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim
Cc: Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Towards an IGC Statement on RFC 6852 "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards"

On this new "hot track", I found this interesting RFC6852 review by Stéphane Bortzmeyer in his blog (en français seulement) at  <http://www.bortzmeyer.org> www.bortzmeyer.org.

frt rgds

--c.a.

RFC 6852: Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards

Date de publication du RFC : Janvier 2013

Auteur(s) du RFC : R. Housley (IETF Chair), S. Mills (IEEE-SA President), J. Jaffe (W3C CEO), B. Aboba (IAB Chair), L. St.Amour (ISOC President and CEO) Pour information Première rédaction de cet article le 26 Janvier 2013

Au cours des préparatifs de la réunion WCIT, organisée par l'UIT à Dubaï en décembre 2012, une des propositions faites au sein de la bureaucratie UIT était de rendre obligatoires, d'une manière ou d'une autre, les normes techniques émises par l'UIT. Ce projet n'a finalement apparemment pas été adopté mais il avait déclenché une réaction des autres SDO, qui ne voyaient pas pourquoi l'UIT aurait un tel privilège. Trois de ces SDO, l'IEEE, l'IETF et le W3C ont signé en commun une déclaration, dite OpenStand, dont ce RFC reprend le texte.

On comprend l'UIT : ses normes techniques (comme X.25 ou X.400) sont aujourd'hui bien oubliées et, dans l'Internet d'aujourd'hui, il ne reste guère de normes UIT qui soient utilisées (X.509 et ASN.1 doivent être parmi les rares exceptions, et encore, X.509 est menacé par le RFC 6698). Obtenir par un traité international, puis par la loi, ce que les acteurs du réseau lui ont refusé est donc tentant. L'un des principaux points de la déclaration tripartite des autres SDO est donc que l'adoption des normes doit rester fondée sur le volontariat : on déploie sur le réseau réel les normes qui ont un sens, et pas n'importe quel délire issu des comités Théodule de l'UIT, déconnectés de la réalité depuis longtemps.

La déclaration tripartite OpenStand a été signée le 29 août 2012, sans discussion à l'intérieur de l'IETF, dont les membres ont découvert le texte a posteriori. Comme la déclaration était le résultat d'un accord multilatéral, il ne pouvait plus être modifié par la suite. Le RFC reprend son texte littéralement, et tout le processus normal de discussion d'un RFC a donc été court-circuité : il y a bien eu des appels à commentaires mais les commentaires ont été complètement ignorés.

D'autres organisations ont signé depuis cette déclaration, on peut en trouver la liste sur le site officiel d'OpenStand.

Que dit cette déclaration (section 2) ? Après un préambule où n'est mentionné que le business (comme si l'Internet ne servait pas à une myriade d'autres activités, comme le notait le commentaire #193), les global markets et la concurrence, la déclaration affirme cinq points. Le premier est une sorte de clause de « non-ingérence dans les affaires des autres SDO », où chaque signataire s'engage à respecter les règles des autres. Le deuxième est l'adhésion à cinq principes :

     Un processus de développement des normes qui repose sur des processus clairs et documentés, sans arbitraire,

     La recherche d'un accord aussi large que possible, prenant en compte l'intérêt de tous,

     La visibilité publique des travaux en cours, avec par exemple des appels à commentaires qui soient publics (on notera que le développement de la déclaration OpenStand n'a pas suivi cet excellent principe),

     Un équilibre entre les parties prenantes, de manière à éviter le poids excessif d'un groupe précis (l'UIT est dominée par les États, alliés aux opérateurs telco traditionnels, mais les autres SDO ont en commun qu'elles sont réservées aux professionnels, le simple utilisateur n'est pas représenté),

     Une ouverture à tous les volontaires qui veulent participer.

Le troisième point de la déclaration est un pot-pourri de points souhaitables dans les normes techniques produites (par exemple qu'elles permettent l'interopérabilité, la résilience, le passage à l'échelle, etc).

Le quatrième est le plus hypocrite : la disponibilité des normes techniques. Or, si des dinosaures comme l'ISO ou l'AFNOR ne publient toujours pas leurs normes sur l'Internet, si des organisations comme l'ETSI imposent des restrictions ridicules (enregistrement préalable, limite à trois normes accessibles), l'UIT, après de très longues hésitations, a fini par passer au vingt-et-unième siècle et ses normes sont désormais gratuitement accessibles. Par contre, un des signataires d'OpenStand, l'IEEE, ne le fait toujours pas... Il avait été question de mettre dans la déclaration tripartite une phrase comme « The text of standards is made accessible to all, free of charge or at low cost », voire, plus flou, un mot sur l'importance d'une distribution free des normes (avec la délicieuse ambiguité de l'anglais sur le mot free) mais cela a été écarté, sinon l'IEEE ne signait pas. C'est sur ce point que le caractère politicien d'OpenStand est le plus clair.

Le même point mentionne la délicate question de l'appropriation intellectuelle, qui affecte tant de normes. Les différences de politique entre les trois signataires (et même à l'intérieur de chaque signataire, notamment l'IETF), font que la déclaration reste très vague, acceptant aussi bien les techniques complètement libres que celles plombées par un brevet, à la seule condition, très générale, que les licences soient FRAND.

Enfin, le cinquième point de la déclaration est l'importance d'une adoption volontaire des normes, fondée sur leur mérite technique et pas sur une décision autoritaire, comme indiqué au début de cet article.

On 01/28/2013 06:57 PM, McTim wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Avri Doria < <mailto:avri at acm.org> avri at acm.org> wrote:

>> 

>> On 28 Jan 2013, at 12:59, michael gurstein wrote:

>> 

>>> 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.

>> 

>> wow!

>> 

>> so anyone who does not agree that the document should be disavowed, but who rather thinks we should work with them to expand their viewpoint to include civil society is not a right thinking individual.  yes as s civil society member who is a member of ISOC and who participates in IETF (though never having gotten to close to the IAB, though some friends serve and have served) I was disappointed in its purely  business view.  but in general I think the sentiment about technopolicy and its independence from government oversight was essentially correct.

>> 

>> Your absolute condemnations of all who do not agree with you seems akin to name calling.

> 

> I have to agree with Avri here.

> 

> I think the market referred to in the RFC is the one whereby Standards 

> are either taken up or not.  It's not just about people making money, 

> it's about which Standards people use, regardless of money being made.

> 

> I propose that IGC sign on to it.

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130128/273e0827/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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