Re: [IAB] WCIT slides
Hi Arturo, Good points that you have made. However, I would like to just sharpen some of the things. There are many governments that do not understand how the Internet works. Well, there are a lot of people even in the IETF that might not really know how Internet works, and even bigger number outside the IETF. However, there is a growing number of government that does understand this at least on some level. This is due to the years of work that different people, and organizations (including ISOC, RIRs, ICANN, etc) that have put a lot of effort into this locally and internationally. So, there is proof even governments can be educated... ;) Therefore, that work has to continue, as you say, in all levels including technical and political. The I* organizations have to pull together to make this happen, and have done it already for a while. However, new people and new insight for the work is needed, always. Cheers, Jonne. On 3/19/13 10:32 PM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote: As I mentioned in the mic during the IAB-sponsored Discussion of WCIT, during the week I had the opportunity to talk and interact to some of the policy fellows invited by ISOC (in general were people from the national regulator or from the ministry of telecommunications -AFAIK-). I also had the opportunity (along with Marcelo Bagnulo) to have breakfast with them and to present a summary of the Internet ecosystem and its complexities. From my experience during the week and the IAB-sponsored Discussion of WCIT I have this comments that I said I was going to share in the list: - It seems that there is not much understanding for governments in how the Internet ecosystem works. - Governments believe (or believed) that ITU is/was the common place to discuss and try to resolve Internet matters. - The Internet is an open entity with many organizations interacting with each other and the relationships among them may be very complex. We need to communicate this to governments and help them to interact with all the Internet-stake-holders. - Everyone has a place and a role in the Internet open model. Even governments. We need to let them play, help them to find their place, teach them the rules of the game and avoid to step in each others feet (I used the example of an RIR standardizing protocols or the IETF trying to mandate national laws) - To solve many of the today's Internet problems requires interaction at several layers (technical, policy, government and the separation between them is very blur) and between a diverse set of actors. It requires communication and coordination among all parties. - The communication and dialogue has to be a common effort. Today it is not enough to say that the IETF or the X forum is open to everybody. Being open is a must, the next step is going out and create communication channels, not wait for them. - The Internet does not have a common API for governments and it may never have one. Local APIs do not exists or are complex. [1] - As technical community we need to inform governments which technological solutions we already have. This minimize or eliminate their desire to re-invent the wheel in closed forums or create pseudo-standards that contradict ours. I think that is all. I hope it helps for future discussion about the topic. Regards, as [1] I borrowed the idea of the Government API from John Curran. On 3/15/13 10:57 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: With apologies for the problems making these slides available, and thanks to Bernard for finding a work-around, for now the slides are available via links from http://www.iab.org/2013/03/14/wcit-what-happened-whats-next/ Yours, Joel M. Halpern Original Message Subject: Re: [IAB] WCIT slides Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:40:04 + From: Bernard Aboba bernard.ab...@gmail.com I have created a blog entry on the IAB website that points to the slides, agenda and session recording: http://www.iab.org/2013/03/14/wcit-what-happened-whats-next/
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Hi, I think very strongly that IAB should sign this document. Cheers, Jonne. -- Jonne Soininen Renesas Mobile Tel: +358 40 527 4634 E-mail: jonne.soini...@renesasmobile.com On 8/11/12 1:55 AM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document. Bob On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:19 AM, IETF Chair wrote: The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pd f An earlier version was discussed in plenary, and the IAB Chair called for comments on the IETF mail list. This version includes changes that address those comments. Th IETF 84 Administrative plenary minutes have been posted, so that discussion can be reviewed if desired. The minutes are here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary On 8 August 2012, the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors approved this version of the document. The approval process is underway at the W3C as well. The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the i...@iab.org and the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-24. Thank you, Russ Housley IETF Chair
Re: Query to the community -- An additional IETF Meeting event?
Hello everybody, The beer and gear seems to work pretty well at Nanog, and therefore it is a good idea to consider it for the IETF. However, I am a bit worried that we are, however, not seeing the difference between the IETF and Nanog. Nanog is a Network Operator Group. Hence, the name. Vendors come there and show their products to their potential customers. In addition, sometimes the people that come to the meetings are a bit different - though, a significant overlap does exist. We are a bit different.Though, we do have many operators, many of the people are from the vendor camp, and other camps (such as academia). For a vendor, it might seem a bit that showing your product at the IETF, you're mostly showing it to your competitor. Therefore, I don't believe an IETF beer would have quite the same interest than the Nanog one would. I am very skeptical if this concept would work at the IETF.. That said, if trying it out does not carry financial risk for the IETF, perhaps we can try this out, and see what happens. I guess we are supposed to believe in running code, aren't we... Cheers, Jonne. -- Jonne Soininen Renesas Mobile Tel: +358 40 527 4634 E-mail: jonne.soini...@renesasmobile.com On 3/16/12 10:13 PM, IAOC Chair bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: The IESG and IAOC are considering an addition to the IETF meeting week, and we would like your views before we develop the idea further. At NANOG, there is a Beer and Gear reception one evening. There are exhibitor tables with product vendors (hardware and software) and service providers (registries, registrars, ISPs, ESPs, etc.) and anyone else interested in face time with NANOG participants. They show their equipment and services. There is bar in the center of the room serving beer, wine, and soft drinks. There are hors d'oeuvres scattered around the room. QUESTION: What do you think about doing a Beer and Gear style of event on an evening that does not conflict with other IETF activities? This would be an opportunity for free food and drink for attendees, for vendors and service providers to talk with IETF participants, and for additional revenue to the IETF. Obviously, attendance would be optional. Technical people are at the tables, not sales or marketing staff. Vendors know that the audience is very technical, so they send the people that can communicate with that audience. We would charge for exhibit tables, to raise additional funds for the IETF. A stronger base of opportunities for IETF sponsorship distributes our funding, making it less fragile; this could make it less likely that we would have last-minute scrambles for additional sponsors, including hosts. A successful Beer-and-Gear like event would not solve this but it would help. In the past, the IETF has avoided vendor exhibits and demonstrations. However it is clear that NANOG has found a balance that works and that NANOG participants and the vendors consider the event valuable. We believe this could translate well to the IETF. We are considering some test events, hopefully to be held at IETF 84 (Vancouver, July 2012) and IETF 85 (Atlanta, November 2012). The kinds of evaluation criteria we are considering could include: - Did participants enjoy the event? - Did vendors consider the event successful? - Did the IETF raise additional funds? - Did the event steal potential sponsors away from other aspects of the meeting? So, what do you think? Is this something that we should try? Please respond on the ietf@ietf.org mail list. On behalf of the IESG and the IAOC, Russ Housley Bob Hinden
Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
Hi Brian, On 9/21/11 12:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] The Trust would need to commit to allowing these advisors to join their meetings too. But that can be done in other ways than the Trust Agreement. (so yes, I agree with this line of thought) Obviously this all assumes there is a consensus for changing the I* chairs role ...exactly. I'm far from convinced about that. I think the real need is to figure out how to make the IAOC an Oversight committee rather than it getting involved in executive decisions, and to figure out how to make the IAB an Architecture board instead of getting involved in administrative matters. I totally agree. In addition, if the people that have been given at least theoretically highest positions in the IETF leadership would not like to take the responsibility of the trust, who then would? These people are trustees in my mind as the puck of responsibility ends at them. I repeat what I said earlier, I believe the problem is real and needs to be addressed. I think it is good, Olaf, you brought it up. However, I believe this is a matter of organizing *internally* in the IAOC rather than changing the rules. Perhaps they have to hire help, or get even more of it from the ISOC. Cheers, Jonne. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
Hi Olaf, I went through the draft just now, and I have some quite strong feelings about it. I'm sorry I'm sending my comments so late in the game. A disclaimer first: I was the chairman of the IAOC some years back, but I haven't been actively involved with IETF administration after that. Therefore, my reactions are based on the history, and I don't necessarily have the up-to-date information of today, anymore. Anyways, I thank Olaf of bringing up this real problem: the IAOC is a lot of work measured in time, and effort. At least, when I was there, I think it was too much work for people who were already busy in so many other ways. However, I think the solution is a bit menemistä perse edellä puuhun (== putting the cart before the horse): The IAOC should be a _strategic_ body that gives a direction for the administration of the IETF. Basically IAOC is the closest you have to the board of the IETF (financial management, asset management, management of the operations). Therefore, by design, you have the stakeholders represented in the body (the main chairs, the president and CEO of ISOC). The Trust on the other hand is everything the IETF has (as ownership - the biggest asset the IETF has is of course the community). It owns the fruits of the labour of the whole community - the intellectual property that the community creates. I think it is very clear that the main stakeholders (the I* chairs) and the main responsible for the administrator of the trust (the president/CEO of ISOC) have to be trustees and show ownership of the trust - you just cannot delegate that. Like said, I understand the problem: The IAOC is a lot of work for people who already have a lot to do. However, I think that problem should be managed without reducing the oversight of the IETF leadership over the IETF financials, assents, and other important activities. Perhaps, the IAOC should think how to reorganize, and strengthen the operational part of the IETF to reduce the burden of the IAOC. This might mean increasing the level of investment to the operations of the IETF to make sure the IAOC members do not have to be part of the operational stuff, but can concentrate on making just the strategic decisions and doing the oversight. If I would have to summarize this all into one sentence: The workload problem is a problem only the IAOC can fix, and cannot be done by reorganizing the IAOC. Sorry for the long e-mai. Cheers, Jonne. -- Jonne Soininen Renesas Mobile Tel: +358 40 527 4634 E-mail: jonne.soini...@renesasmobile.com On 9/19/11 11:05 AM, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote: Brian, So far you are the only person that has responded with substance. Other feedback was promised but never arrived. I hope to rev this document shortly so that we can finalize it before the Taiwan meeting. I wrote: Based on the discussion I've updated the draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership Essentially I incorporated Dave Crocker's proposal to 1) replace the 'chairs' by voting members appointed by the respective bodies. 2) allow the chairs to participate in all meetings and provide (unsolicited) advice. I believe that allows chairs to exercise their responsibilities of keeping a coherent perspective of the organization an allow them to steer outcomes if needed, but doesn't require the day-to-day involvement that is required from a diligent voting member. You responded: And it therefore removes the two Chairs' shared responsibility for decisions of the IAOC and the IETF Trust. I am still far from convinced that this is a good thing. That is correct, under this proposal the chairs don't have voting responsibilities in the IAOC. And while I argue that the chairs can 'steer' as ex-officio I understand that is something you are either convinced off or not. Also, the new section 2.3, which is incorrectly titled but presumably is intended to be IETF Trust membership seems to me to be inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement states that the Eligible Persons (to become Trustees) are each a then-current member of the IAOC, duly appointed and in good standing in accordance with the procedures of the IAOC established pursuant to IETF document BCP 101 [as amended]. That doesn't exclude the non-voting members of the IAOC, which is why the IAD is already a Trustee. To change this, the Trust would have to change the Trust Agreement. To be clear, I'm not saying this can't be done, but it can't be ignored either. Yes, it is incorrectly titled. As far as I understand the trust agreement the voting members and the IAD are members of the trust. If the 'chairs' are non-voting members of the IAOC then the idea is that they would not be trustees and a modification of the trust agreement is not needed. That can be clarified. If the chairs should be trustees (are you arguing that?) then I agree, a trust agreement modification is needed. --Olaf
Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility
Hi Jari, On 9/19/11 9:36 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote: Jonne, First, I want to thank you for the clear expression in Finnish. (Maheeta! Vaikka näiden muutosten läpivienti alkaa kyllä tuntua siltä kuin jäitä polttelisi, saa odottaa perse ruvella että kukaan olisi samaa mieltä mistään, 'kele!) Too bad the English version was not as graphic. Mun mielestäni tämä homma on menossa väärään suuntaan ja ihan reisille. Pitää funtsia, mitä ollaan korjaamassa, jottei heitetä lapsia pesuveden mukana. I wish people good luck trying to use machine translate all this.. Anyway, I like your description of the issue and it helps me understand the concerns. That being said, I could probably construct a similar argument for all of the bodies that an IETF chair, for instance, has to attend. Are we really saying that under all circumstances, the chairs have to attend everything that IAOC deals with? And be voting members? And if that is too much then the entire IAOC has to delegate more of its work? Really? And if the chairs have to be voting members in IAOC, why aren't they voting members in IAB and IESG? I have some trust in the chairs ability to prioritize, delegate and engage in the important discussions. Jari, it is a bit difficult to say what other groups (outside their own) the I* chairs have to attend. However, I don't think I said people have to go to every single meeting or be active in everything that IAOC decides to do. Already when I was in the IAOC, the work was organized (at least partly) into committees. Not everybody was active in every committee. So, you don't have to be involved in everything in the IAOC. In addition, you make it sound like we would have made people be active in the IAOC at gun point. Those instances were few and far apart! Actually, already then some things were being delegated. For instance, we had Greg Kapfer (CFO of ISOC) in the finance committee representing (in a sense of the word) ISOC. I want to be very clear: Sometimes it is just fine to delegate work. I think this is a completely internal matter for the IAOC to think how they organize themselves as long as the things get done. I actually think they should delegate more of the operational work! However, I don't think it is appropriate to delegate responsibility. Moving the chairs and the CEO/President of ISOC to a non-voting position is just that. I do like your idea that IAOC itself needs to work smarter though. It should really be just a board, not the guys doing the actual work. As an outsider, it sometimes feels like you guys are doing too much. In any case, if you and Bob think this would be a good direction for the IAOC to take, can you comment how feasible it is? Has it been tried, could it be tried? (And shouldn't it already be done if it was easy?) Just answering one of your questions above, but I just wanted to tie it to this thing here as well. You asked if the whole IAOC has to re-prioritize if the chairs are overwhelmed. I think your question is wrong. Theoretically, the IAOC should concentrate on doing decisions on the direction of the administration of the IETF. This means approving the budget, approving meetings, etc. There are few decisions to be made for the IETF, but those decisions are extremely important. However, there are multiple reasons why the IAOC is still very involved in the details. Partly this is also because the community expects them to be on top of many details with little importance - even on the frequency and the size of the cookie service during an IETF meetings. There are other reasons as well, of course. Cheers, Jonne. Jari On 19.09.2011 15:35, jonne.soini...@renesasmobile.com wrote: Hi Olaf, I went through the draft just now, and I have some quite strong feelings about it. I'm sorry I'm sending my comments so late in the game. A disclaimer first: I was the chairman of the IAOC some years back, but I haven't been actively involved with IETF administration after that. Therefore, my reactions are based on the history, and I don't necessarily have the up-to-date information of today, anymore. Anyways, I thank Olaf of bringing up this real problem: the IAOC is a lot of work measured in time, and effort. At least, when I was there, I think it was too much work for people who were already busy in so many other ways. However, I think the solution is a bit menemistä perse edellä puuhun (== putting the cart before the horse): The IAOC should be a _strategic_ body that gives a direction for the administration of the IETF. Basically IAOC is the closest you have to the board of the IETF (financial management, asset management, management of the operations). Therefore, by design, you have the stakeholders represented in the body (the main chairs, the president and CEO of ISOC). The Trust on the other hand is everything the IETF has (as ownership - the biggest asset the IETF has is of course the community). It owns the fruits of the labour of the
