[governance] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] RFC 6852 considered appeal

[Adam Peake]

RFC 6852 (concern re. business/market focused view of Internet
standards) was discussed at the time we were trying to drag together a
contribution for the February IGF consultation.

Important issue for some, but I think discussion was left with the
suggestion that it might make a good subject for a workshop.

Adam




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:20 PM
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] RFC 6852 considered appeal
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu


As I announced it on Aungust 28th, I consider appealing RFC 6852 (the
market oriented ISOConsortium rather than the better Internet oriented
IETF). For calendar reasons I would have to foreward it this week.

The reason why is that I gave the IAB, IETF and ISOC Chairs all the
time before and after the WCIT to explain the Internet research,
engineering and users communities their vision of the Internet
technical evolution and to clarify their "OpenStand" strategy, in
relation with our expectations for an "OpenUse" architectural effort
(a better, neutral and secure use of the Internet).

What do they think better to foster with the other stakeholders (Govs,
Civil Society and International Organizations): cooperation,
coopetition, or competition?  Or do they think the Internet
technological "statUS-quo" under the self-governance of the private
sector is a more most advisable incremental development path? In such
a case we would be better to keep and protect it:  organizing its
"adminance" (technical governance) together, within their market
monopoly framework, as we did for ICANN.

I will come back on this in the coming days, but I would already like
to know if some have new positions to suggest. I plan to look
carefully at the positions already expressed by Stephane Bortzmeyer,
Michael Gurstein, Daniel Kalchev, Avri Doria, Lee McKnight, Suresh
Ramasubramanian, Kerry Brown, Norbert Bollow, Dominique Lacroix,
McTim, Adam Peake, Louis Pouzin, Carlos Alfonzo, Ian Peter, Nick
Ashton-Hart, Alejandro Pisanty, and others on  ther lists.

I underline that it cannot be a direct debate on the very mission of
the IETF and of the Civil Society technical involvement: it can only
directly consider the respect of the RFC 2026 Internet standard
process and RFC 4845 IAB publication process in publishing RFC 6852.
Otherwise I would be dismissed. So, the point is to show that due to
the very nature of the matter at hand they could/should have used
other rules, and therefore that they had taken decisions.

I pland to object these decisions as inadequate in making everyone
understand where they, IETF and we stand. And therefore to have a
decision to publish a clarification on the way RFC 6852 does not
conflict with :
- RFC 3869 (IAB Concerns and Recommendations regarding Internet
Research and Evolution)
- and RFC 3935 (mission and core values of the ITEF). The appeal is in
three rounds: one to the IETF, with escalation to the IAB and final to
ISOC.

I have several times strategically appealed the IESG/IAB. The effort
of this appeal would only be acceptable for me if it truely helps the
community, clarifying how to develop and launching an OpenUse strategy
by Civil Society and open to Govs and international organizations,
with the cooperation of the engineering community and based upon a
reliable and performing better internet, towards a people centered
better use of the Internet.

Comments welcome.
jfc

-------------- 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