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

[Norbert Bollow]

Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> 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.

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

There is also a still-pending request to develop an IGC statement on
RFC 6852 (or at least to try to do so) which has been deferred, but
has not been decided against.

Greetings,
Norbert

> ---------- 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