[governance] Re: RFC 6852: Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards

[Adam Peake]

No, I don't think so.  Louis' making a valid point. IETF is dominated
by US participants/contributors. It's also dominated by certain types
of firm, and it's working methods seem to suit a certain type of firm.
 And that's led to some, notably Telcos to seek other standards
processes or to create their own.

Adam



On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> Not to mention that, by a simple extrapolation of M.Pouzin's logic, you would find 80% of the US participants (all the same delegation, right?) at IETF in full agreement with each other.
>
> Which doesn't quite describe the IETF process all that well :)
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 29-Jan-2013, at 17:59, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>> About 80% of RFCs are written by US firms employees.
>>
>> I think that may be in the ballpark, although I would be curious to
>> know where that number came from.
>>
>> Even if spot on however, it doesn't mean that RFCs are written by US
>> companies.  These people volunteer their time and knowledge to develop
>> Standards.  Rarely are they done at the direction of corporates.
>>
>>
>> Approval based on
>>> decibels guarantees a majority for the more numerous US delegation.
>>
>> There isn't a US delegation.  This is not an intergovernmental process.
>>
>> Internet
>>> draft standards are not exchanged with international standard bodies for
>>> comments.
>>
>> They are published online for all to see.  Should they be exchanged
>> with other standards bodies?
>>
>>> The real process is driven by US industry
>>
>> I would dispute this statement.
>>
>> , and does not conform to
>>> the well wishing statements of the document.
>>>
>>> Even though the wording smacks of "the flag and motherhood", I don't feel
>>> it's worth signing on it.
>>
>> It comes from the USA, therefore it is "bad" ?
>>
>> What specifically do you object to?
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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