At 10:51 12-08-2012, Stewart Bryant wrote:
If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care
more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than
taking steps to avoid Internet governance being
transferred by government decree to a secretive
agency of the UN that runs by government majority.
Several hours ago the IAB approved collaboration guidelines with "a
secretive agency of the UN which is run by government majority". The
US has already stated that it "will not support proposals that would
increase the exercise of control over Internet governance or content"
( http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/telecom/196031.htm ).
Internet governance is somewhat like political prostitution (
http://political-prostitution.com/ ). If the governments of the
world want to fight about that for the benefit of humanity, it is
their choice. I don't see why the IETF has to get into a fight about
Internet governance. It is ok if the IETF Chair wants an affirmation
supported by various SDOs to thrust under the nose of delegates in
November. I understand that in some venues the only way to be heard
is to make pompous speeches.
At 14:49 12-08-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote:
I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one. We
should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities
that include the IETF, with an element of negotiation, even
compromise, and so on. This is a case where leadership is actually
required, and I don't think that process is an established one at
all. We do know how to
The IAB Charter allows it to handle multilateral activities.
If the process question was actually raised to derail the signing of
the current document, my reaction would be quite similar to Stewart's.
A person expects people to behave as sheep if the person mentions
"collective empowerment" and doesn't want anyone to raise
questions. The person could also smile, nod and ignore the questions
as the sheep won't pursue the matter.
If a person wanted to derail the signing of the current document the
person would only delay the outcome by about a month. It would be
somewhat entertaining as the IAB has already taken a vote on the
matter. Please do not ask me to elaborate on how this might be done.
As I said before, sometimes you have to act.
And play god. :-)
The following are selected quotes:
"Cooperation. Respectful cooperation between standards organizations,
whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity, processes, and intellectual
property rules of the others."
The IETF should not be disrespectful by making any comments about the
ITU which may have a negative connotation. :-)
"Collective empowerment. Commitment by affirming standards organizations
and their participants to collective empowerment by striving for standards
that:"
The affirmation is not a commitment taken by IETF participants. The
IESG knows the path to take if it would like to get such a commitment.
Regards,
-sm
