Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
The problem is not what actually each person said but what they say it was said and gets recorded into a statement that has no weight and it is not representative of the entire community. -Jorge On Oct 12, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote: Hiya, On 10/12/2013 01:02 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I* leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do that. So fwiw I was there as Jari's sidekick-de-jour and I can confirm that both Jari and Russ repeatedly made it clear that anything substantive needed IETF community consensus. I realise that's not as good as a recording or set of minutes, but there ya go. Cheers, S.
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
There is an important difference between policy and politics. Promoting a politics discussion within the IETF arena will become the demise of the IETF. -J On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.comwrote: It is clear to me that the IETF cannot be away from Internet Governance discussions. Yes, it is politics and we do not like politics, but that is the way the Internet is these days. It is also appears that we do not have consensus of how to participate and what to say in those discussions (I do not mind the way it is today but it seems that some folk -and I understand them- prefer other ways). Inevitably, as John said we are in times of change and we need to figure out how to interact with other Internet ecosystem organizations, we like or not. By means of our current bodies (IAB, IESG), individual submissions or working groups we need to find a way to what say, where, and how. Regards, as On 10/11/13 5:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Hi John, On 12/10/2013 05:02, John Curran wrote: ... In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership who can participate in any discussions that occur, Without obsessing about the word leadership, but following up on a comment made by Noel Chiappa on the leader statements thread, I think we have to recognise that nothing in the NomCom process, the IAB Charter, or the IESG Charter, would cause us to select IAB or IETF Chairs who are particularly suited to this role. In fact I think that the plan of record is to leave such matters to ISOC. Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us. Brian
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
For what it's worth, I think Russ and Jari did the right thing in signing the statement the way they did, at the time they did it, with the prior consultation they did. I was not consulted. And I'm glad they are capable of acting at this level without consulting me. On 10/11/2013 06:02 PM, John Curran wrote: Folks - As a result of the Internet's growing social and economic importance, the underlying Internet structures are receiving an increasing level of attention by both governments and civil society. The recent revelations regarding US government surveillance of the Internet are now greatly accelerating government attention on all of the Internet institutions, the IETF included. All of this attention is likely bring about significant changes in the Internet ecosystem, potentially including how the IETF interacts with governments, civil society, and other Internet organizations globally. In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership who can participate in any discussions that occur, and it would further be prudent for the IETF leaders to be granted a sufficient level of support by the community to take positions in those discussions and make related statements, to the extent the positions and the statements are aligned with established IETF positions and/or philosophy. The most interesting part of the myriad of Internet Governance discussions is that multiple organizations are all pushing ahead independently from one another, which results in a very dynamic situation where we often don't even know that there will be a conference or meeting until after its announced, do not know auspices under which it will be held, nor what the scope of the discussions held will ultimately be. However, the failure of any of the Internet organizations to participate will not actually prevent consideration of a variety of unique and colorful proposals for improving the Internet and/or the IETF, nor will it preclude adoption even in the absence of IETF input... The IETF is a very important Internet institution, and it deserves to be represented in any discussions which might propose changes to the fundamental mechanisms of Internet cooperation. It would be a wonderful world indeed if all of these discussions started with submission of an Internet Draft and discussion on open mailing lis, but that hasn't been the modus operandi of governments and is probably too much to realistically expect. /John
Re: Montevideo statement
It was pointed out that I got the RFC numbers wrong. Sorry. I should have RFC 6220 (role of IETF protocol parameters operators) and RFC 2850 (IAB charter). Jari
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us. I would guess that nobody (almost nobody?)in the IETF objects to I* leadership representing our views at such things; in fact, I suspect most of us would find it positively very desirable for the I* to be represented there. (I certainly do.) The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I* leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do that. So, for instance, in signing a statement, they need to say John Smith, current Ixx chair, signing as an individual, or something like that - to make it clear to readers that their signature does not bind the organization as a whole. Noel
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
Hiya, On 10/12/2013 01:02 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I* leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do that. So fwiw I was there as Jari's sidekick-de-jour and I can confirm that both Jari and Russ repeatedly made it clear that anything substantive needed IETF community consensus. I realise that's not as good as a recording or set of minutes, but there ya go. Cheers, S.
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
It is clear to me that the IETF cannot be away from Internet Governance discussions. Yes, it is politics and we do not like politics, but that is the way the Internet is these days. It is also appears that we do not have consensus of how to participate and what to say in those discussions (I do not mind the way it is today but it seems that some folk -and I understand them- prefer other ways). Inevitably, as John said we are in times of change and we need to figure out how to interact with other Internet ecosystem organizations, we like or not. By means of our current bodies (IAB, IESG), individual submissions or working groups we need to find a way to what say, where, and how. Regards, as On 10/11/13 5:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Hi John, On 12/10/2013 05:02, John Curran wrote: ... In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership who can participate in any discussions that occur, Without obsessing about the word leadership, but following up on a comment made by Noel Chiappa on the leader statements thread, I think we have to recognise that nothing in the NomCom process, the IAB Charter, or the IESG Charter, would cause us to select IAB or IETF Chairs who are particularly suited to this role. In fact I think that the plan of record is to leave such matters to ISOC. Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us. Brian
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
On 10/13/2013 1:02 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us. I would guess that nobody (almost nobody?)in the IETF objects to I* leadership representing our views at such things; For at least one of the items in the signed statement, there is no basis for claiming to know what the IETF's views are. When the IETF's views are clear, then of course having folks accurately represent those views publicly is dandy. The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I* leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do that. Here's where reality runs over theory. For mass-market public statements, such nuance is entirely lost. It is therefore misguided to believe that careful qualification will alter what is perceived by the public. Lest anyone dismiss this concern with something along the lines of we can't be responsible for other people's failure to listen carefully, I'll note that proactively anticipating and dealing with such likely failures is exactly the responsibility of anyone claiming to speak for an organization publicly. There's even professional media relations training typically given to executives, for just this purpose. So, for instance, in signing a statement, they need to say John Smith, current Ixx chair, signing as an individual, or something like that - to make it clear to readers that their signature does not bind the organization as a whole. Yeah, but the likely benefit of that isn't very high, given the strong predilection some folk have for stoking the political fires when the topic is already highly politicized. For example: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions-abandon-the-us-government/ Again, the nature of playing in such a sandbox -- as the Montevideo Statement attempts to do -- requires robust effort both to be accurate in what is said, but also to protect against misinterpretation. Montevideo Statement seems to have accomplished neither. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
Folks - As a result of the Internet's growing social and economic importance, the underlying Internet structures are receiving an increasing level of attention by both governments and civil society. The recent revelations regarding US government surveillance of the Internet are now greatly accelerating government attention on all of the Internet institutions, the IETF included. All of this attention is likely bring about significant changes in the Internet ecosystem, potentially including how the IETF interacts with governments, civil society, and other Internet organizations globally. In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership who can participate in any discussions that occur, and it would further be prudent for the IETF leaders to be granted a sufficient level of support by the community to take positions in those discussions and make related statements, to the extent the positions and the statements are aligned with established IETF positions and/or philosophy. The most interesting part of the myriad of Internet Governance discussions is that multiple organizations are all pushing ahead independently from one another, which results in a very dynamic situation where we often don't even know that there will be a conference or meeting until after its announced, do not know auspices under which it will be held, nor what the scope of the discussions held will ultimately be. However, the failure of any of the Internet organizations to participate will not actually prevent consideration of a variety of unique and colorful proposals for improving the Internet and/or the IETF, nor will it preclude adoption even in the absence of IETF input... The IETF is a very important Internet institution, and it deserves to be represented in any discussions which might propose changes to the fundamental mechanisms of Internet cooperation. It would be a wonderful world indeed if all of these discussions started with submission of an Internet Draft and discussion on open mailing lis, but that hasn't been the modus operandi of governments and is probably too much to realistically expect. /John
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what Internet Governance means and entails. Several organizations just as ICANN, ISOC, ARIN, etc, play a specific role in the development and operations of the Internet, but by no means are representative of the Internet as a whole, even if you claim that organizations such as ICANN are muti stakeholders. Each of the the leaders are leading each organization and the sum of the leaders does not make them leaders of the Internet No doubt each institution is important and has to play the role it has to play, but when you get into governance matters (which again is not clearly defined what governance of the Internet means) some institutions could be stepping out of their mission and role. Clear example is ICANN, I don't know who authorized or delegated any sort of mandate to Fadi to get into conversations about Internet Governance with the Government of Brazil. Yes he leads ICANN, but as such, he is just and administrative/executive employee. In your particular case as President and CEO of ARIN, clearly you lead that organization but it does not make you representative of the Internet or its users. I can't find anywhere in the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation of ARIN the word Governance. Nobody will deny any of the alleged leaders to participate in any meeting, conference, event, in their individual capacities, but NONE has any representation of the whole Internet. About NSA/Snowden/etc, mixing this matter with Internet Governance make things more complicated. It would be nice for all governments to come out clear of what kind of surveillance they do on the Internet (including the Brazilian Government). IMHO this is a complete separate discussion. Do we really want to create a government for the Internet ? How do you propose to select people to be representatives for all the sectors ? And in particular how do you propose to select an IETF representative and who/how it's going to give her/him its mandate to represent the organization on other forums ? My 0.02 Jorge
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
Hi John, On 12/10/2013 05:02, John Curran wrote: ... In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership who can participate in any discussions that occur, Without obsessing about the word leadership, but following up on a comment made by Noel Chiappa on the leader statements thread, I think we have to recognise that nothing in the NomCom process, the IAB Charter, or the IESG Charter, would cause us to select IAB or IETF Chairs who are particularly suited to this role. In fact I think that the plan of record is to leave such matters to ISOC. Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us. Brian
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote: Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what Internet Governance means and entails. You are correct. The term Internet Governance is a term of art, and a poor one at that. It is the term that governments like to use, and in fact, in 2005 several of them got together at the United Nations-initiated World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and came up with the following definition: Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf I happen to hate the term Internet Governance, but its use has become a common as shorthand for the discussions of governments expressing their needs and desires with respect to the Internet, its related institutions, and civil society. It might not be necessary for the IETF to be involved (if it so chooses), but I'm not certain that leaving it to ISOC would make sense if/when the discussion moves into areas such as structures for managing delegated registries of IETF-defined protocols (i.e. protocols, names, numbers) In your particular case as President and CEO of ARIN, clearly you lead that organization but it does not make you representative of the Internet or its users. I can't find anywhere in the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation of ARIN the word Governance. Nobody will deny any of the alleged leaders to participate in any meeting, conference, event, in their individual capacities, but NONE has any representation of the whole Internet. Full agreement there... No one has any representation of the entire Internet, and we should oppose the establishment of any structures that might aspire to such. Do we really want to create a government for the Internet ? How do you propose to select people to be representatives for all the sectors ? I do not, and expect others on this list feel the same. However, it is likely that more folks need to participate to make sure that such things don't happen. And in particular how do you propose to select an IETF representative and who/how it's going to give her/him its mandate to represent the organization on other forums ? That is the essential question of this discussion, and hence the reason for my email. I'd recommend that the IETF select leaders whose integrity you trust, you provide them with documents of whatever principles the IETF considers important and how it views it relations with other Internet institutions (could be developed via Internet Drafts) and ask them to report back as frequently as possible. Alternatively, the IETF could opt to not participate in such discussions at all, and deal with any developments after the fact (an option only if there is sufficient faith that the current models, structures, and relationships of the IETF are inviolate.) FYI, /John
Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)
Thank you for your frank and honest response John. -Jorge On Oct 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, John Curran jcur...@istaff.org wrote: On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote: Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what Internet Governance means and entails. You are correct. The term Internet Governance is a term of art, and a poor one at that. It is the term that governments like to use, and in fact, in 2005 several of them got together at the United Nations-initiated World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and came up with the following definition: Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf I happen to hate the term Internet Governance, but its use has become a common as shorthand for the discussions of governments expressing their needs and desires with respect to the Internet, its related institutions, and civil society. It might not be necessary for the IETF to be involved (if it so chooses), but I'm not certain that leaving it to ISOC would make sense if/when the discussion moves into areas such as structures for managing delegated registries of IETF-defined protocols (i.e. protocols, names, numbers) In your particular case as President and CEO of ARIN, clearly you lead that organization but it does not make you representative of the Internet or its users. I can't find anywhere in the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation of ARIN the word Governance. Nobody will deny any of the alleged leaders to participate in any meeting, conference, event, in their individual capacities, but NONE has any representation of the whole Internet. Full agreement there... No one has any representation of the entire Internet, and we should oppose the establishment of any structures that might aspire to such. Do we really want to create a government for the Internet ? How do you propose to select people to be representatives for all the sectors ? I do not, and expect others on this list feel the same. However, it is likely that more folks need to participate to make sure that such things don't happen. And in particular how do you propose to select an IETF representative and who/how it's going to give her/him its mandate to represent the organization on other forums ? That is the essential question of this discussion, and hence the reason for my email. I'd recommend that the IETF select leaders whose integrity you trust, you provide them with documents of whatever principles the IETF considers important and how it views it relations with other Internet institutions (could be developed via Internet Drafts) and ask them to report back as frequently as possible. Alternatively, the IETF could opt to not participate in such discussions at all, and deal with any developments after the fact (an option only if there is sufficient faith that the current models, structures, and relationships of the IETF are inviolate.) FYI, /John
Re: Montevideo statement
Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: I think that is a better approach actually. The CC TLDs are in effect members of a bridge CA and ICANN is merely the bridge administrator. It is an interesting way to say it, and put that way, I like it. One activity that I believe is an NSA attack on good crypto is the whole Certificate Signing Policy thing. Nobody has a clue what it means, or how the computer systems are supposed to interpret it anyway, but it scares the lawyers, and so they would rather having nothing. However, it the root of the trust in country X is the government of country X, then government can essentially internalize/nationalize all the liability associated with trusting them. It would be much like governments do with nuclear power: it only works out because the governments provide the insurance in the form of legislation... mcr Better they do this using good crypto, than that they do this by mcr trying to subvert the (US-controlled) crypto. Its not all US controlled, you can use GOST... That's not what I meant. I didn't mean that the algorithms will be subverted, I meant that the trust paths will be subverted. Whether this is by legislating filters against DNS(sec) that ISPs have to implement, or having an official mitm SSL cert that all desktops must trust, or just blocking port-443. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpAz3mtZ3Tgg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs were attending a chief officer-type meeting: there were CEOs and so on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent the organizations of which they are chairs. John is quite right that people unfamiliar with the way the IETF or IAB work might interpret the statement along the lines of, The CEO of the IETF said that the IETF subscribes to some view. Normally, the leader of an organization can direct that organization to some end; the Chair is the leader; therefore, the Chair can direct the organization. Of course, that's not how we operate (this is, I think, at the bottom of this very discussion). But others might get that impression. What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the chairs acting in that sort of leader of organization role. If we do accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue a joint communique with someone who has to go negotiate the contents of that communique (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity. There might be some history to the we reject: kings, presidents and voting. Should the IETF change the way it operates? There are advantages to the Chair directing the organization. It is easier to set policy. It is easier for the Chair to negotiate with other organizations. There are disadvantages, for example, the policy might not reflect the wishes of the community. The IETF might have to reconsider whether people participate as individuals or as corporate folks. There is the question of openness. If the IETF were to set policy behind closed doors, can it say that it is open? We don't take working group decisions behind closed doors. The IESG tries to take its decisions in a transparent manner. There may have been a time when it was not like that. As I mentioned previously the IAB [1] is supposed to be based on collegial responsibility. There hasn't been any discussion to change that during the tenure of the last two IAB Chairs. What's different now? The IAB has published statements and RFCs about its positions. The Chairs can exercise their discretion. The members of the IESG and the IAB have not mentioned that they do not have the ability to negotiate under current rules [2]. The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair have not mentioned that they are not able to negotiate due to the current rules. The question of trust comes up every now and then. Responsibility [3] seems to be an inconvenient word on this mailing list. What's the opinion of the persons who are part of leadership about all this? Regards, -sm 1. People outside think IAB has power :-) 2. I chose a word quickly. 3. the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable.
Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
As a practical matter any organization that tries to do things with other organizations needs to have some party that can act on its behalf. That is why Ambassadors are necessary. The current constitution of the IETF means that the chairs of the IAB and the IETF have very limited authority to speak for the organization, but of course they have to. I have argued for junking the DARPA constitution for years. It was designed to keep power in the hands of the few while the rest of the organization didn't worry their pretty heads about it. They don't even get to call themselves members. We should junk the noncon completely and the constituency currently qualified to stand for noncon should elect the chair.
Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com I have argued for junking the DARPA constitution for years. It was designed to keep power in the hands of the few while the rest of the organization didn't worry their pretty heads about it. Factually incorrect in a number of ways. The NomComm system was set up to keep personal politics out of the selection process (or at least keep it to a minimum). And it wasn't the 'DARPA' system - it resulted from discussion among a number of people in the IETF. We should junk the noncon completely and the constituency currently qualified to stand for noncon should elect the chair. The last thing the IETF needs is elections. Noel
Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
First off, we like to be in a situation where past IETF discussion, consensus, RFCs, and current work program guide what the leaders say. I think this was largely the case with the Montevideo statement as well. Of course these are judgment calls. Please send us feedback - I for instance talk in various external events pretty much on a weekly basis, and I'd appreciate feedback in cases where I've done this well or less well. Secondly, there may be times where the leaders might make statements that are suggestions for a future path to take. I do think that is important. The S in IESG, for instance. Often the status of these statements would be obvious from the text I think that we should … Again, feedback is appreciated if we're not being clear. Thirdly, you need to understand that the context of the discussion or statements matters a lot from a practical perspective. If I talk to the press, I have very little opportunity to finesse what the final message is. If we talk to other organisations it is in practice difficult to arrange for simultaneous editing by a large group of people. Or get all nuances exactly as you want them. But the best model is to have whatever we say supported by earlier discussions. But I hope that we can use our own words. If we support open standards at the IETF or we have a working group on HTTP 2.0, I need to be able to say so. In short, my hope at least is that I can speak about IETF matters that are decided obvious openly, that I can make suggestions on future paths in some contexts, and that where we see a need to make new substantive consensus calls, we actually run them with the usual IETF process. And we appreciate feedback - there will be mistakes, for which I apologize. And I hope we all understand how important communication with the external world is. Jari - speaking as himself only
Re: Montevideo statement
Leaders were processed thoroughly prior to their appointment so I trust them. And that they hold through the spirit of being an IETF and shall be responsible under oath for any impact on the organization. BR, Medel GOOGLE IS IPv6 COMPLIANT ! On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: I agree to appoint leader under clear procedures, so I am not sure of representing without procedure is authorised in ietf, but I trust that ietf leaders do practice procedure, but not sure if discussion meant that there was something missing in this statement practice. AB On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Arturo Servin wrote: We appointed our leaders, we have to trust them. They had to do a call, an important one and they made it. I support what they did, that is what we chose them for, to represent us and be our voice. We cannot expect that they ask our opinion for every decision they made, that is not practical or possible in today's world. Sometimes like in this statement, we need to trust in their good judgment. My 20 cents, as On 10/9/13 12:00 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 02:44 -0400 Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote: ... That does not say that the IAB has issued a statement. On the contrary, the IAB did not issue a statement. I think the difference between some individuals issuing a statement in their capacity as chairs and CEOs and so on, and the body for which they are chair or CEO or so on issuing a similar statement, is an important one. We ought to attend to it. Please note that this message is not in any way a comment on such leadership meetings. In addition, for the purposes of this discussion I refuse either to affirm or deny concurrence in the IAB chair's statement. I merely request that we, all of us, attend to the difference between the IAB Chair says and the IAB says. Andrew, While I agree that the difference is important for us to note, this is a press release. It would be naive at best to assume that its intended audience would look at it and say Ah. A bunch of people with leadership roles in important Internet organizations happened to be in the same place and decided to make a statement in their individual capacities. Not only does it not read that way, but there are conventions for delivering the individual capacity message, including prominent use of phrases like for identification only. Independent of how I feel about the content of this particular statement, if the community either doesn't like the message or doesn't like this style of doing things, I think that needs to be discussed and made clear. That includes not only at the level of preferences about community consultation but about whether, in in the judgment of the relevant people, there is insufficient time to consult the community, no statement should be made at all. Especially from the perspective of having been in the sometimes-uncomfortable position of IAB Chair, I don't think IAB members can disclaim responsibility in a situation like this. Unlike the Nomcom-appointed IETF Chair, the IAB Chair serves at the pleasure and convenience of the IAB. If you and your colleagues are not prepared to share responsibility for statements (or other actions) the IAB Chair makes that involve that affiliation, then you are responsible for taking whatever actions are required to be sure that only those actions are taken for which you are willing to share responsibility. Just as you have done, I want to stress that I'm not recommending any action here, only that IAB members don't get to disclaim responsibility made by people whose relationship with the IAB is the reason why that are, e.g., part of a particular letter or statement. john -- This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.
Re: Montevideo statement
On 10/8/2013 11:34 AM, IETF Chair wrote: I wanted to send a link to a statement that Russ and I signed as a part of a meeting that we held last week with the leaders of other Internet organisations. http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation Folks, There are a few things that we should consider rather more carefully than we've been doing, beyond a few of the postings. (I'd especially like to suggest that there be more careful review of Andrew Sullivan's postings on the thread, since he raises essential point, in my view.) In any event: 1. In spite of calling itself a press release (at the bottom) and having gone through an ISOC media person, what was released was not a press release. Neither in form nor substance. Its title says statement, and the bottom list of people is in the style of a signature list, rather than merely listing attendees -- and note that Jari does characterize this as being signed. Hence what was released was in the style of a formal statement, issued under the control of its signatories. 2. The statement does not merely say that these folk met and discussed stuff. It says they agreed to stuff, or at leased called for stuff. 3. These people were acting as representatives of their organizations; hence the use of their titles. And the statement does not explicitly say they were speaking only for themselves. So their agreement to the Statement needs to be taken as their speaking for their organizations. 4. Having both IETF Chair and IAB Chair makes it look like there were two organizations being represented, but in practical terms there really weren't. 5. It has been noted that the IAB is largely autonomous for something like this; hence the IAB Chair formally only has to answer to the IAB itself, and we are told he was in this case. What this begs is a question about the IAB acting independently of the IETF community... My initial reading of the Statement was that it was quite benign, so that any concern about it's speaking for the IETF was purely a matter of principle. In that regard, I considered it a nice test case for some basic IETF discussion of the authority of our 'leaders' to make statements on our behalf but without our review or approval. Then I re-read the statement more carefully and landed on: They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. 5. It's not at all clear what accelerating the globalization means here, since the statement offers no context for whatever 'globalization' efforts with ICANN and IANA are happening. Worse, this item is entirely political, involving organizations with which the IETF has on-going agreements and reliance. Further, I believe there is no IETF context -- nevermind consensus -- for the topic. As far as I know the IETF has no basic discomfort with its relationship with IANA, for example. We might individually make guesses about what this item in the Statement means, but my point is that a) we shouldn't have to, and b) it has no context within the IETF community. For any of our 'leaders' to make agreements on our behalf, about political issues of organizations with which we have formal arrangements -- and probably any other organizations -- is significantly problematic. As has been noted, there are practical and formal limits to requirements for getting IETF rough consensus. Any constraints on public statements by IETF leaders needs to balance against those limits, if we are to allow folk to speak publicly at all. 6. The realities of trying to get IETF community rough consensus means that anything requiring timely action cannot seek formal consensus. To that end, we need to distinguish between 'review' and 'approval'. IETF community review can be very quick indeed, though probably not less than 24 hours, if the range of review comments is to be a good sampling of the community. In the current example, community review quickly noted the erroneous phrasing that confuses concern about disclosure of an act from concern about the act itself. (I'm working on the assumption that the Montevideo group is really more concerned that monitoring was/is taking place than that someone made this fact public...) Now to a more basic issue. It's likely to be uncomfortable, but I'll stress that this isn't about individual people. Fortunately, no sane person can have any concerns about the intent of either of the IETF folk who participated in this event and its resulting Statement. So what follows is about IETF roles, responsibilities and authorities, not about individuals... What does it mean to be a 'leader' in the IETF, who is Chair of the IETF or the IAB? Unlike CEOs and Presidents and Chairs of corporations, IETF leaders mostly don't lead
Re: leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
On 10October2013Thursday, at 1:30, SM wrote: At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs were attending a chief officer-type meeting: there were CEOs and so on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent the organizations of which they are chairs. John is quite right that people unfamiliar with the way the IETF or IAB work might interpret the statement along the lines of, The CEO of the IETF said that the IETF subscribes to some view. Normally, the leader of an organization can direct that organization to some end; the Chair is the leader; therefore, the Chair can direct the organization. Of course, that's not how we operate (this is, I think, at the bottom of this very discussion). But others might get that impression. What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the chairs acting in that sort of leader of organization role. If we do accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue a joint communique with someone who has to go negotiate the contents of that communique (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity. There might be some history to the we reject: kings, presidents and voting. Should the IETF change the way it operates? There are advantages to the Chair directing the organization. It is easier to set policy. It is easier for the Chair to negotiate with other organizations. There are disadvantages, for example, the policy might not reflect the wishes of the community. The IETF might have to reconsider whether people participate as individuals or as corporate folks. There is the question of openness. If the IETF were to set policy behind closed doors, can it say that it is open? We don't take working group decisions behind closed doors. The IESG tries to take its decisions in a transparent manner. There may have been a time when it was not like that. As I mentioned previously the IAB [1] is supposed to be based on collegial responsibility. There hasn't been any discussion to change that during the tenure of the last two IAB Chairs. What's different now? The IAB has published statements and RFCs about its positions. The Chairs can exercise their discretion. The members of the IESG and the IAB have not mentioned that they do not have the ability to negotiate under current rules [2]. The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair have not mentioned that they are not able to negotiate due to the current rules. The question of trust comes up every now and then. Responsibility [3] seems to be an inconvenient word on this mailing list. What's the opinion of the persons who are part of leadership about all this? Regards, -sm well, I will stand up and claim to be part of the leadership - since this supposed to be a bottom up organization. the IETF has changed the way it works and we see other fora come into existence that reflect a true bottom up approach. If we (the affected community) feel that a top down approach would be for the best, going forward, I see no better top-down organization than the ITU-T.The community will decide the relevance of a group that ignores or dismisses their needs. /bill 1. People outside think IAB has power :-) 2. I chose a word quickly. 3. the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable.
Re: Montevideo statement
Dave: On IANA: Further, I believe there is no IETF context RFC 6020 and http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf Jari
Re: Montevideo statement
On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Medel v6 Ramirez mgrami...@globe.com.ph wrote: Leaders were processed thoroughly prior to their appointment so I trust them. And that they hold through the spirit of being an IETF and shall be responsible under oath for any impact on the organization. I don't know precisely what you mean by this, but I assure you that there is no oath given. Speaking for myself, much of what I have learned about how to be a leader (at the AD level) in the IETF I have learned on the job. This is an iterative process. Nomcom appointees are not magical. We do our best, and when we screw up the community corrects us, sometimes harshly, sometimes eloquently, but without fail. This is a good thing.
Re: Montevideo statement
On 10/11/2013 7:31 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: Dave: On IANA: Further, I believe there is no IETF context RFC 6020 and http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf Jari, The fact that you had to reach back 2.5 years, to a frankly rather obscure document that came from the IAB and not the broader IETF, demonstrates my point that we lacked meaningful context and, in particular, you lacked mandate for speaking about this on behalf of the IETF. And lest the end of the above sentence be taken as too stern or critical, I'll point out that I think we, the IETF, have been marching down a path of causing our 'leaders' to feel empowered in this way -- we have actually been moving towards kings and voting -- and hence, again, this is not a criticism of you or Russ personally. If anyone feels compelled to apply the word criticism here, they need to apply it to all of us, the IETF community. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Montevideo statement
I like your approach and comments, and I think that our ietf leaders are not always leaders but in IESG they are the managers. Mostly ietf ruled by community consensus not presidents, so we have many leaders including you and some others may be additional leaders for the community. The ietf wants feedback because there are not less than 50 leaders in ietf that lead the Internet community or leaders that make/discover things for the community when they participate. I really want to say the important thing about leaders that they have followers (not statements). Managers have workers and they may represent organisation decisions and statements. The body that is managing the decisions of ietf can make representation statements, but leader statements has no value if there is no followers. Therefore, IMO, if there is no time for asking feedback of community then the IETF chair can ask the IESG, to support such represent statement. Otherwise we wait to review the community feedback for two weeks. AB On Thursday, October 10, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote: Folks, There are a few things that we should consider rather more carefully than we've been doing, beyond a few of the postings. (I'd especially like to suggest that there be more careful review of Andrew Sullivan's postings on the thread, since he raises essential point, in my view.) In any event: 1. In spite of calling itself a press release (at the bottom) and having gone through an ISOC media person, what was released was not a press release. Neither in form nor substance. Its title says statement, and the bottom list of people is in the style of a signature list, rather than merely listing attendees -- and note that Jari does characterize this as being signed. Hence what was released was in the style of a formal statement, issued under the control of its signatories. 2. The statement does not merely say that these folk met and discussed stuff. It says they agreed to stuff, or at leased called for stuff. 3. These people were acting as representatives of their organizations; hence the use of their titles. And the statement does not explicitly say they were speaking only for themselves. So their agreement to the Statement needs to be taken as their speaking for their organizations. 4. Having both IETF Chair and IAB Chair makes it look like there were two organizations being represented, but in practical terms there really weren't. 5. It has been noted that the IAB is largely autonomous for something like this; hence the IAB Chair formally only has to answer to the IAB itself, and we are told he was in this case. What this begs is a question about the IAB acting independently of the IETF community... My initial reading of the Statement was that it was quite benign, so that any concern about it's speaking for the IETF was purely a matter of principle. In that regard, I considered it a nice test case for some basic IETF discussion of the authority of our 'leaders' to make statements on our behalf but without our review or approval. Then I re-read the statement more carefully and landed on: They called for accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing. 5. It's not at all clear what accelerating the globalization means here, since the statement offers no context for whatever 'globalization' efforts with ICANN and IANA are happening. Worse, this item is entirely political, involving organizations with which the IETF has on-going agreements and reliance. Further, I believe there is no IETF context -- nevermind consensus -- for the topic. As far as I know the IETF has no basic discomfort with its relationship with IANA, for example. We might individually make guesses about what this item in the Statement means, but my point is that a) we shouldn't have to, and b) it has no context within the IETF community. For any of our 'leaders' to make agreements on our behalf, about political issues of organizations with which we have formal arrangements -- and probably any other organizations -- is significantly problematic. As has been noted, there are practical and formal limits to requirements for getting IETF rough consensus. Any constraints on public statements by IETF leaders needs to balance against those limits, if we are to allow folk to speak publicly at all. 6. The realities of trying to get IETF community rough consensus means that anything requiring timely action cannot seek formal consensus. To that end, we need to distinguish between 'review' and 'approval'. IETF community review can be very quick indeed, though probably not less than 24 hours, if the range of review comments is to be a good sampling of the community. In the current example, community review quickly noted the erroneous phrasing that confuses
Re: Montevideo statement
Hi Medel, At 19:11 09-10-2013, Medel v6 Ramirez wrote: Leaders were processed thoroughly prior to their appointment so I trust them. And that they hold through the spirit of being an IETF and shall be responsible under oath for any impact on the organization. There was a Recall petition last year (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75672.html ). Note that the IETF Trustee have a fiduciary duty to protect the IETF's property. What are the implications of: They identified the need for ongoing effort to address Internet Governance challenges, and agreed to catalyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation. Should a global body have oversight over the IETF? Some people are arguing for that as part of the future of Internet Cooperation. Regards, -sm
Re: Montevideo statement
Dave, The fact that you had to reach back 2.5 years, to a frankly rather obscure document that came from the IAB and not the broader IETF, demonstrates my point that we lacked meaningful context You asked for context and I provided a context. We can certainly debate how meaningful it is. There are obvious arguments that we can make against its meaningfulness. But I disagree with your characterisation of the most recent RFC (6020) on topic from the organisation that in the IETF ecosystem has IANA oversight in its charter (per RFC 2580, a BCP) as obscure. In any case I don't want to argue too much, because I _do_ agree with your larger points: They don't set work agendas. They don't control overall budgets. They don't hire and fire people. For almost all of the formal IETF 'decisions' they participate in, it is with exactly one vote in a group, and not more authority than that. ... IETF leaders are best viewed as facilitators, rather than leaders. They do huge amounts of organizing, coordinating, interfacing, in the classic style of the cliche'd 'shepherding cats'. Although I would claim that while there is no traditional leading at the IETF, I do think that IETF facilitators do occasionally lead in the sense of suggesting paths forward, identifying potential challenges, etc. And I of course would love to have this: We need to find some sort of language that gives constructive guidance and constraint about public representations of the IETF, by our 'leaders'. Jari
Re: Montevideo statement
Hi Russ, At 15:51 07-10-2013, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer something like, to avoid shooting the messenger: They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally, due to pervasive monitoring and surveillance by powerful actor(s). The wording could have been different instead of one expressing a strong concern about the revelations. There is a statement from LACNIC about allegations of espionage (http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2013-lacnic-acerca-espionaje). The statement signed by the IAB Chair (http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/montevideo-statement-on-the-future-of-internet-cooperation/) is about future of Internet Cooperation. This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement without requesting comments from the IETF Community. In my humble opinion it would be good if there was a comment period. Regards, -sm
Re: Montevideo statement
Dear colleagues, On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:08PM -0700, SM wrote: This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement Speaking only (empahtically only) for myself, I quite strongly disagree. The IAB has issued no statement in this case. The text as posted is quite clear: ---%---cut here--- The leaders of organizations … have met […] Russ Housley, Chair Internet Architecture Board (IAB) ---%---cut here--- That does not say that the IAB has issued a statement. On the contrary, the IAB did not issue a statement. I think the difference between some individuals issuing a statement in their capacity as chairs and CEOs and so on, and the body for which they are chair or CEO or so on issuing a similar statement, is an important one. We ought to attend to it. Please note that this message is not in any way a comment on such leadership meetings. In addition, for the purposes of this discussion I refuse either to affirm or deny concurrence in the IAB chair's statement. I merely request that we, all of us, attend to the difference between the IAB Chair says and the IAB says. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Re: Montevideo statement
On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote: Dear colleagues, On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:08PM -0700, SM wrote: This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement Speaking only (empahtically only) for myself, I quite strongly disagree. The IAB has issued no statement in this case. The text as posted is quite clear: ---%---cut here--- The leaders of organizations … have met […] Russ Housley, Chair Internet Architecture Board (IAB) ---%---cut here--- That does not say that the IAB has issued a statement. On the contrary, the IAB did not issue a statement. I think the difference between some individuals issuing a statement in their capacity as chairs and CEOs and so on, and the body for which they are chair or CEO or so on issuing a similar statement, is an important one. We ought to attend to it. Please note that this message is not in any way a comment on such leadership meetings. In addition, for the purposes of this discussion I refuse either to affirm or deny concurrence in the IAB chair's statement. I merely request that we, all of us, attend to the difference between the IAB Chair says and the IAB says. It would be highly salubrious if in the future if things that look like open letters are simply signed by individuals listing their organizational role/affiliation rather than stating that leaders of the following organizations support this statement. There is abundant historical precedent for that. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Montevideo statement
On 09/10/13 07:44, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Dear colleagues, On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:08PM -0700, SM wrote: This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement Speaking only (empahtically only) for myself, I quite strongly disagree. The IAB has issued no statement in this case. The text as posted is quite clear: ---%---cut here--- The leaders of organizations … have met […] Russ Housley, Chair Internet Architecture Board (IAB) ---%---cut here--- That does not say that the IAB has issued a statement. On the contrary, the IAB did not issue a statement. I think the difference between some individuals issuing a statement in their capacity as chairs and CEOs and so on, and the body for which they are chair or CEO or so on issuing a similar statement, is an important one. We ought to attend to it. Please note that this message is not in any way a comment on such leadership meetings. In addition, for the purposes of this discussion I refuse either to affirm or deny concurrence in the IAB chair's statement. I merely request that we, all of us, attend to the difference between the IAB Chair says and the IAB says. Andrew, Although there is obviously a difference in wording, it is not that simple. As people had the meeting and signed this directly linked to their roles (IAB chair, IETF chair), it implies to the public that there is a correlation with the organisation's positions and the support from their organisations, putting weight behind their statements. Don't get me wrong, I definitely support that this situation deserved statement to be made. But I support SM's proposal that it would be good to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay and getting input from the community. And I second sm's concern that The wording could have been different instead of one expressing a strong concern about the revelations. Agree, personally I am not concerned that certain activities were revealed, I am very concerned that some of these things happened in the first place. Best regards, Tobias Best regards, A
Re: Montevideo statement
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com I merely request that we, all of us, attend to the difference between the IAB Chair says and the IAB says. We may attend to it, but we are unable to make sure that the rest of the world pays attention to that nuance. From: SM s...@resistor.net In my humble opinion it would be good if there was a comment period. Yes; if there is no time-pressure, why not take a week or so and find out what the community thinks? Then it is not just one person (remember, we have no kings...) Noel
Re: Montevideo statement
On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom tobias.gond...@gondrom.org wrote: But I support SM's proposal that it would be good to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay and getting input from the community. This is a nice theory, but the usual last call time at IETF is either two weeks or four weeks, not a few days, and that's for a good reason. I think there is no way that a statement of the type we are discussing can ever represent IETF consensus unless we go through an actual consensus call. So the real question here is, is it ever appropriate for the chair of the IAB or the chair of the IETF to sign a statement like this without getting consensus? I think that's a good question, and I don't have a strong opinion on the answer. But if the answer is that we need consensus, then we actually need to do a consensus call. The only value I see in a few days would be an opportunity for wordsmithing—as someone pointed out, the current statement could be read as expressing concern that secrets were leaked, rather than concern about what was done in secret, and it would have been nice if that wording could have been corrected. If that is what you were asking for, then that does make sense. (thinking out loud...)
Re: Montevideo statement
--On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 02:44 -0400 Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote: ... That does not say that the IAB has issued a statement. On the contrary, the IAB did not issue a statement. I think the difference between some individuals issuing a statement in their capacity as chairs and CEOs and so on, and the body for which they are chair or CEO or so on issuing a similar statement, is an important one. We ought to attend to it. Please note that this message is not in any way a comment on such leadership meetings. In addition, for the purposes of this discussion I refuse either to affirm or deny concurrence in the IAB chair's statement. I merely request that we, all of us, attend to the difference between the IAB Chair says and the IAB says. Andrew, While I agree that the difference is important for us to note, this is a press release. It would be naive at best to assume that its intended audience would look at it and say Ah. A bunch of people with leadership roles in important Internet organizations happened to be in the same place and decided to make a statement in their individual capacities. Not only does it not read that way, but there are conventions for delivering the individual capacity message, including prominent use of phrases like for identification only. Independent of how I feel about the content of this particular statement, if the community either doesn't like the message or doesn't like this style of doing things, I think that needs to be discussed and made clear. That includes not only at the level of preferences about community consultation but about whether, in in the judgment of the relevant people, there is insufficient time to consult the community, no statement should be made at all. Especially from the perspective of having been in the sometimes-uncomfortable position of IAB Chair, I don't think IAB members can disclaim responsibility in a situation like this. Unlike the Nomcom-appointed IETF Chair, the IAB Chair serves at the pleasure and convenience of the IAB. If you and your colleagues are not prepared to share responsibility for statements (or other actions) the IAB Chair makes that involve that affiliation, then you are responsible for taking whatever actions are required to be sure that only those actions are taken for which you are willing to share responsibility. Just as you have done, I want to stress that I'm not recommending any action here, only that IAB members don't get to disclaim responsibility made by people whose relationship with the IAB is the reason why that are, e.g., part of a particular letter or statement. john
Re: Montevideo statement
On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote: On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom tobias.gond...@gondrom.org wrote: But I support SM's proposal that it would be good to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay and getting input from the community. This is a nice theory, but the usual last call time at IETF is either two weeks or four weeks, not a few days, and that's for a good reason. I think there is no way that a statement of the type we are discussing can ever represent IETF consensus unless we go through an actual consensus call. So the real question here is, is it ever appropriate for the chair of the IAB or the chair of the IETF to sign a statement like this without getting consensus? I think that's a good question, and I don't have a strong opinion on the answer. But if the answer is that we need consensus, then we actually need to do a consensus call. The only value I see in a few days would be an opportunity for wordsmithing—as someone pointed out, the current statement could be read as expressing concern that secrets were leaked, rather than concern about what was done in secret, and it would have been nice if that wording could have been corrected. If that is what you were asking for, then that does make sense. (thinking out loud...) Yes, that is what is was thinking about. Probably wisdom of the crowds could have helped with the wordsmithing part. And in my view even some little feedback (3-7 days) is better than none. And just to be clear: with such a short comment option, the goal is just comments not to get a rough consensus. All the best, Tobias
Re: Montevideo statement
SM: This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement without requesting comments from the IETF Community. In my humble opinion it would be good if there was a comment period. This is a statement about what happened at a meeting. Discussion would not change what happened at the meeting. Making the statement very public allows a good discussion of what should happen next. I look forward to that discussion. Russ
Re: Montevideo statement
On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Tobias Gondrom tobias.gond...@gondrom.org wrote: On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote: On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom tobias.gond...@gondrom.org wrote: But I support SM's proposal that it would be good to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay and getting input from the community. This is a nice theory, but the usual last call time at IETF is either two weeks or four weeks, not a few days, and that's for a good reason. I think there is no way that a statement of the type we are discussing can ever represent IETF consensus unless we go through an actual consensus call. So the real question here is, is it ever appropriate for the chair of the IAB or the chair of the IETF to sign a statement like this without getting consensus? I think that's a good question, and I don't have a strong opinion on the answer. But if the answer is that we need consensus, then we actually need to do a consensus call. The only value I see in a few days would be an opportunity for wordsmithing—as someone pointed out, the current statement could be read as expressing concern that secrets were leaked, rather than concern about what was done in secret, and it would have been nice if that wording could have been corrected. If that is what you were asking for, then that does make sense. (thinking out loud...) Yes, that is what is was thinking about. Probably wisdom of the crowds could have helped with the wordsmithing part. I imagine that's exctly the part of course that they aren't interested in once they're hashed out a high-level statement (and have general agreement between the signatories ) is more input. It seems dramatically simpler to just make the satement as individuals who put their name on something. And in my view even some little feedback (3-7 days) is better than none. And just to be clear: with such a short comment option, the goal is just comments not to get a rough consensus. We have a process for obtaining consensus. It takes a little while. All the best, Tobias signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Montevideo statement
We appointed our leaders, we have to trust them. They had to do a call, an important one and they made it. I support what they did, that is what we chose them for, to represent us and be our voice. We cannot expect that they ask our opinion for every decision they made, that is not practical or possible in today's world. Sometimes like in this statement, we need to trust in their good judgment. My 20 cents, as On 10/9/13 12:00 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 02:44 -0400 Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote: ... That does not say that the IAB has issued a statement. On the contrary, the IAB did not issue a statement. I think the difference between some individuals issuing a statement in their capacity as chairs and CEOs and so on, and the body for which they are chair or CEO or so on issuing a similar statement, is an important one. We ought to attend to it. Please note that this message is not in any way a comment on such leadership meetings. In addition, for the purposes of this discussion I refuse either to affirm or deny concurrence in the IAB chair's statement. I merely request that we, all of us, attend to the difference between the IAB Chair says and the IAB says. Andrew, While I agree that the difference is important for us to note, this is a press release. It would be naive at best to assume that its intended audience would look at it and say Ah. A bunch of people with leadership roles in important Internet organizations happened to be in the same place and decided to make a statement in their individual capacities. Not only does it not read that way, but there are conventions for delivering the individual capacity message, including prominent use of phrases like for identification only. Independent of how I feel about the content of this particular statement, if the community either doesn't like the message or doesn't like this style of doing things, I think that needs to be discussed and made clear. That includes not only at the level of preferences about community consultation but about whether, in in the judgment of the relevant people, there is insufficient time to consult the community, no statement should be made at all. Especially from the perspective of having been in the sometimes-uncomfortable position of IAB Chair, I don't think IAB members can disclaim responsibility in a situation like this. Unlike the Nomcom-appointed IETF Chair, the IAB Chair serves at the pleasure and convenience of the IAB. If you and your colleagues are not prepared to share responsibility for statements (or other actions) the IAB Chair makes that involve that affiliation, then you are responsible for taking whatever actions are required to be sure that only those actions are taken for which you are willing to share responsibility. Just as you have done, I want to stress that I'm not recommending any action here, only that IAB members don't get to disclaim responsibility made by people whose relationship with the IAB is the reason why that are, e.g., part of a particular letter or statement. john
leader statements (was: Montevideo statement)
Dear colleagues, Once again, I'm speaking only for myself. I think there is an important matter here for the IETF community to think about, particularly as the Nomcom is _right now_ seeking nominees for open positions. I want to be very careful to emphasise that I do not intend to specify a preference for how things should go. This is because I am currently the IAB's liaison to the nomcom, and I therefore think it's important to avoid expressing my personal preferences in this case. But I encourage people to talk to the nomcom about their views on this general topic. (Also, if you have views about this, you might want to consider standing for an open IESG or IAB position.) So, On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 10:00:39AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: this is a press release. It would be naive at best to assume that its intended audience would look at it and say Ah. A bunch of people with leadership roles in important Internet organizations happened to be in the same place and decided to make a statement in their individual capacities. Not only does it not read that way, but there are conventions for delivering the individual capacity message, including prominent use of phrases like for identification only. I don't think that individual capacity is what the identified people were doing at that meeting. They went to the meeting _as the chairs_ of the IAB and the IETF. Therefore, it is quite appropriate that they (but they alone) sign the statement in their capacity as chairs. And under those circumstances, I don't actually see what feedback about the statement could be appropriate. They did something, as chairs. They make a statement, as chairs, about it. Someone else's thoughts about what the meeting should have been about are certainly appropriate topics for discussion; but I don't see why those thoughts should affect the contents of a statement about the actual meeting that happened. Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs were attending a chief officer-type meeting: there were CEOs and so on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent the organizations of which they are chairs. John is quite right that people unfamiliar with the way the IETF or IAB work might interpret the statement along the lines of, The CEO of the IETF said that the IETF subscribes to some view. Normally, the leader of an organization can direct that organization to some end; the Chair is the leader; therefore, the Chair can direct the organization. Of course, that's not how we operate (this is, I think, at the bottom of this very discussion). But others might get that impression. What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the chairs acting in that sort of leader of organization role. If we do accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will happen without consultation. For a CEO is not going to agree to issue a joint communiqué with someone who has to go negotiate the contents of that communiqué (and negotiate those contents in public). If we do not accept it, then we must face the fact that there will be meetings where the IETF or IAB just isn't in the room, because we'll have instructed the chairs not to act in that capacity. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Re: Montevideo statement
Hi Russ, At 09:24 09-10-2013, Russ Housley wrote: This is a statement about what happened at a meeting. Discussion would not change what happened at the meeting. Making the statement very public allows a good discussion of what should happen next. I look forward to that discussion. One of the organizations mentioned in the statement commented about it as follows: Internet/Web Organizations Issue Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation The leaders of organizations responsible for coordination of the Internet technical infrastructure globally met in Montevideo, Uruguay, to consider current issues affecting the future of the Internet. They issued today a Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, signed by African Network Information Center (AFRINIC), American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Society (ISOC), Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC), Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC), W3C. One of the signatories of the statement mentioned (if I understood correctly) that the statement was from the organizations. Is the statement an IAB statement or a statement from the IAB Chair? Please note that I have read the message from Andrew (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82926.html ). I agree that discussion would not change what happened. I don't think that it is a good idea to have a fait accompli [1] for the IETF Community to discuss about. It has been said that we reject: kings, presidents and voting. The statement creates the perception that the leaders of the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering Task Force are like kings or presidents. The Internet Architecture Board is supposed to be based on collegial responsibility. I read that as meaning not to have statements which commits the Internet Architecture Board to a course of action without some form of approval from the members of that Board. Obviously, some form of approval would not have to be sought if the course of action has been discussed previously. The [IAB] board discussed the issue of a joint OpenStand statement or an IAB specific statement. Many members were against a closed review period for such a statement and would prefer to have an open discussion period in the IETF if such a statement was required. There is a comment on the www.iab.org web site about allegations of interference by some governments in the standards development process and a link to an OpenStand statement. It seems that there was a closed review period for the joint OpenStand statement. I don't think that it is possible to build trust if openness and transparency are in name only. I am not enthusiastic about having a discussion which does not materially affect the outcome. Regards, -sm 1. something that has been done and cannot be changed.
Re: Montevideo statement
SM: Each of these leaders comes from a different organization, and each of these organizations grants their leaders different degrees of autonomy. So, the amount of coordination that was done differs for each. In all cases, there was one business day to do the coordination. In my case, I shared the draft statement with the whole IAB, stating my intention to include my name and role at the bottom of the statement. I asked for no wordsmithing because ten organizations were simultaneously handling the statement in their own way. Russ On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:27 PM, SM wrote: Hi Russ, At 09:24 09-10-2013, Russ Housley wrote: This is a statement about what happened at a meeting. Discussion would not change what happened at the meeting. Making the statement very public allows a good discussion of what should happen next. I look forward to that discussion. One of the organizations mentioned in the statement commented about it as follows: Internet/Web Organizations Issue Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation The leaders of organizations responsible for coordination of the Internet technical infrastructure globally met in Montevideo, Uruguay, to consider current issues affecting the future of the Internet. They issued today a Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, signed by African Network Information Center (AFRINIC), American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC), Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Society (ISOC), Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC), Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC), W3C. One of the signatories of the statement mentioned (if I understood correctly) that the statement was from the organizations. Is the statement an IAB statement or a statement from the IAB Chair? Please note that I have read the message from Andrew (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82926.html ). I agree that discussion would not change what happened. I don't think that it is a good idea to have a fait accompli [1] for the IETF Community to discuss about. It has been said that we reject: kings, presidents and voting. The statement creates the perception that the leaders of the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering Task Force are like kings or presidents. The Internet Architecture Board is supposed to be based on collegial responsibility. I read that as meaning not to have statements which commits the Internet Architecture Board to a course of action without some form of approval from the members of that Board. Obviously, some form of approval would not have to be sought if the course of action has been discussed previously. The [IAB] board discussed the issue of a joint OpenStand statement or an IAB specific statement. Many members were against a closed review period for such a statement and would prefer to have an open discussion period in the IETF if such a statement was required. There is a comment on the www.iab.org web site about allegations of interference by some governments in the standards development process and a link to an OpenStand statement. It seems that there was a closed review period for the joint OpenStand statement. I don't think that it is possible to build trust if openness and transparency are in name only. I am not enthusiastic about having a discussion which does not materially affect the outcome. Regards, -sm 1. something that has been done and cannot be changed.
Re: Montevideo statement
I agree to appoint leader under clear procedures, so I am not sure of representing without procedure is authorised in ietf, but I trust that ietf leaders do practice procedure, but not sure if discussion meant that there was something missing in this statement practice. AB On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Arturo Servin wrote: We appointed our leaders, we have to trust them. They had to do a call, an important one and they made it. I support what they did, that is what we chose them for, to represent us and be our voice. We cannot expect that they ask our opinion for every decision they made, that is not practical or possible in today's world. Sometimes like in this statement, we need to trust in their good judgment. My 20 cents, as On 10/9/13 12:00 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 02:44 -0400 Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com javascript:; wrote: ... That does not say that the IAB has issued a statement. On the contrary, the IAB did not issue a statement. I think the difference between some individuals issuing a statement in their capacity as chairs and CEOs and so on, and the body for which they are chair or CEO or so on issuing a similar statement, is an important one. We ought to attend to it. Please note that this message is not in any way a comment on such leadership meetings. In addition, for the purposes of this discussion I refuse either to affirm or deny concurrence in the IAB chair's statement. I merely request that we, all of us, attend to the difference between the IAB Chair says and the IAB says. Andrew, While I agree that the difference is important for us to note, this is a press release. It would be naive at best to assume that its intended audience would look at it and say Ah. A bunch of people with leadership roles in important Internet organizations happened to be in the same place and decided to make a statement in their individual capacities. Not only does it not read that way, but there are conventions for delivering the individual capacity message, including prominent use of phrases like for identification only. Independent of how I feel about the content of this particular statement, if the community either doesn't like the message or doesn't like this style of doing things, I think that needs to be discussed and made clear. That includes not only at the level of preferences about community consultation but about whether, in in the judgment of the relevant people, there is insufficient time to consult the community, no statement should be made at all. Especially from the perspective of having been in the sometimes-uncomfortable position of IAB Chair, I don't think IAB members can disclaim responsibility in a situation like this. Unlike the Nomcom-appointed IETF Chair, the IAB Chair serves at the pleasure and convenience of the IAB. If you and your colleagues are not prepared to share responsibility for statements (or other actions) the IAB Chair makes that involve that affiliation, then you are responsible for taking whatever actions are required to be sure that only those actions are taken for which you are willing to share responsibility. Just as you have done, I want to stress that I'm not recommending any action here, only that IAB members don't get to disclaim responsibility made by people whose relationship with the IAB is the reason why that are, e.g., part of a particular letter or statement. john
Re: Montevideo statement
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote: This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer something like, to avoid shooting the messenger: Of course :-) We meant that the loss of privacy causes concern, not the revelations. No, it is the revelations that cause concern. Nobody is in the least concerned about the fact that the British government and royal family has been replaced by a group of reptilian dopplegangers apart from David Ike who is the only person who knows about it. It is the actions that justify the concern but without the revelations there is no concern. The problem with the language used as I see it is that it is unfortunately rather close to the language used by the establishment types who run round telling us all not to worry our heads about what they are doing and we must certainly not ever question their motives or intentions. The reason I keep reminding people about the previous uses of the syncretic power of GCHQ and the NSA is that they prove that we do need to keep questioning their motives. For years people were dismissed as paranoid leftist hippies for suggesting that the CIA installed a dictatorship in Greece. And now it is known that exactly that happened. In the same way, the idea that US government might attempt to use control over ICANN or IANA for leverage has to be taken seriously. The question is not whether Steve Crocker is comfortable with the situation, it is whether the governance infrastructure is strong enough to prevent abuse over centuries. The US government is currently shut down because some folk in Congress are trying to use the threat of a recession to deny access to health care to a fifth of the population. It is certainly not inconceivable that a future Congress would attempt to abuse control over ICANN is nonsense. It is a US registered corporation subject to US law. If nothing is done then sooner or later there will be some idiot on his hind legs in the Senate talking for 21 hours demanding that Cuba or Palestine be dropped out of the DNS root or be denied IPv6 allocations or some equally stupid grandstanding demand designed to give him a platform on which to run for higher office. I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control before the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to ensure that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of the DNS to be a single root, it could be signed by a quorum of signers (in addition to the key splitting which I am fully familiar with). And every government should be assigned a sovereign reserve of IPv6 addresses to prevent a scarcity being used as leverage. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Re: Montevideo statement
Phillip, On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 08:24 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: If nothing is done then sooner or later there will be some idiot on his hind legs in the Senate talking for 21 hours demanding that Cuba or Palestine be dropped out of the DNS root or be denied IPv6 allocations or some equally stupid grandstanding demand designed to give him a platform on which to run for higher office. This has already happened. Some US-Israeli lobby thing asked RIPE NCC in 2012 (IIRC) to stop economically support a by some nation states blockaded Iran via removing its routing registration information and IP assignments, etc. Not sure exactly how it went from there, but the request was essentially ignored AFAIK. The problem is not what happens when a lobbyist approaching on of these bodies directly is ignored, but when said lobbyists persuades a legal apparatus with standing, to make similarly ill-advised requests. Or to connect back to the Montevideo statement, how to manage a globally cohesive One Internet without exposing it to the threat of legal assault. I.e. how to put the Internet above the law of any one nation state, essentially. Today, a popular belief in Swedish IGF circles is the law applies equally to online as it does to offline -- but this doesn't really compile well for the Internet IMHO where we have 250 something different laws, as it is absolutely fragmenting the Internet judicially speaking to each nation state having some sort of power over its national Internet segment... IMHO, the Internet is a global communications fabric, transcending and superseding individual nation states. Forcefully and offensively removing someones access to it is a crime by any human standard. /M signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Montevideo statement
I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control before the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to ensure that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of the DNS to be a single root, it could be signed by a quorum of signers (in addition to the key splitting which I am fully familiar with). And every government should be assigned a sovereign reserve of IPv6 addresses to prevent a scarcity being used as leverage. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ Quorum signing with split keys was already built and tested in a root server operator testbed (the OTDR testbed) from 1998-2005. It was considered more fragile than the current system. /bill
Re: Montevideo statement
Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control before the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to ensure that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of the DNS to be a single root, it could be signed by a quorum of signers (in addition to the key k-of-n signing for the DNSSEC root was talked about by many, including Tatu Ylonen back in 1996... I have an alternate proposal: every country's ccTLD should sign the root, and/or the other TLDs. That actually hands control of the DNS root back to the legislatures in each country. True: some countries might have perverted notions of what belongs in the root, and we might get different views of the Internet. But, this happens already using a variety of wrong mechanisms that cause harm to the Internet. Better they do this using good crypto, than that they do this by trying to subvert the (US-controlled) crypto. -- Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works pgpPct2J5Wl83.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Montevideo statement
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote: I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control before the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to ensure that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of the DNS to be a single root, it could be signed by a quorum of signers (in addition to the key splitting which I am fully familiar with). And every government should be assigned a sovereign reserve of IPv6 addresses to prevent a scarcity being used as leverage. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ Quorum signing with split keys was already built and tested in a root server operator testbed (the OTDR testbed) from 1998-2005. It was considered more fragile than the current system. Considered more fragile by whom? By the members of the $250m/yr NSA mole program? Very few people in DNS land recognize the class of attack as being realistic. Even when they have prime ministers and members of the GRU visiting them to tell them how important the issue is to their country. We already have one example of lobbyists attempting this type of attack (see Martin's post). So it is far from unrealistic. At present ICANN's power over the DNS is entirely discretionary. Attempting to drop Palestine out of the routing tables would simply be the end of the ICANN root zone. ICANN could continue to manage .com but their influence over the rest of the system would end completely. But DNSSEC changes the balance of power. With the root signed and embedded infrastructure verifying DNSSEC trust chains, the cost of a switchover rises remarkably. And when I tried to mention the fact I tended to get nasty threats. The third question of power is 'how do we get rid of you'. The answer in the case of DNSSEC is that you can't. Fortunately the issue is quite easily fixed, just as the problem of using IPv6 or BGP allocations for leverage is fixable. Governments don't need to wait on ICANN or the IETF to develop a quorum signing model for the DNS apex, they could and should institute one themselves and tell their infrastructure providers to chain to the quorum roots rather than the monolithic apex root. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Re: Montevideo statement
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.cawrote: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote: I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control before the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to ensure that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of the DNS to be a single root, it could be signed by a quorum of signers (in addition to the key k-of-n signing for the DNSSEC root was talked about by many, including Tatu Ylonen back in 1996... Most crypto hardware supports k-of-n keysplitting and most of the code out there makes use of it. And PKIX CAs use k-of-n keysplitting on a monolithic trust anchor rather than a composite trust anchor. So it is easy to see how a technical decision would go that way. But the idea of signing the root did not become a practical possibility until much later. I certainly gave the issue no thought when looking at signing .com. I certainly did not think that it was necessary to wait for the root to be signed to sign .com. I have an alternate proposal: every country's ccTLD should sign the root, and/or the other TLDs. That actually hands control of the DNS root back to the legislatures in each country. True: some countries might have perverted notions of what belongs in the root, and we might get different views of the Internet. But, this happens already using a variety of wrong mechanisms that cause harm to the Internet. I think that is a better approach actually. The CC TLDs are in effect members of a bridge CA and ICANN is merely the bridge administrator. There would have to be adequate controls to ensure that transfer of the root was practical of course. It is probably necessary for the CC TLDs to be able to sign more than one bridge. After all, Europe has just spent many billions replicating GPS. This would cost less. And anyone who is a relying party can choose to chain to a single trust anchor or use multiple anchors. So the quorate approach is still available for those who want it. If France, Cuba, the US and India all agree on the validity of the bridge root, then it is probably valid. Better they do this using good crypto, than that they do this by trying to subvert the (US-controlled) crypto. Its not all US controlled, you can use GOST... -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Re: Montevideo statement
On 8October2013Tuesday, at 6:19, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote: I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control before the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to ensure that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of the DNS to be a single root, it could be signed by a quorum of signers (in addition to the key splitting which I am fully familiar with). And every government should be assigned a sovereign reserve of IPv6 addresses to prevent a scarcity being used as leverage. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ Quorum signing with split keys was already built and tested in a root server operator testbed (the OTDR testbed) from 1998-2005. It was considered more fragile than the current system. Considered more fragile by whom? By the members of the $250m/yr NSA mole program? Very few people in DNS land recognize the class of attack as being realistic. Even when they have prime ministers and members of the GRU visiting them to tell them how important the issue is to their country. We already have one example of lobbyists attempting this type of attack (see Martin's post). So it is far from unrealistic. At present ICANN's power over the DNS is entirely discretionary. Attempting to drop Palestine out of the routing tables would simply be the end of the ICANN root zone. ICANN could continue to manage .com but their influence over the rest of the system would end completely. But DNSSEC changes the balance of power. With the root signed and embedded infrastructure verifying DNSSEC trust chains, the cost of a switchover rises remarkably. And when I tried to mention the fact I tended to get nasty threats. The third question of power is 'how do we get rid of you'. The answer in the case of DNSSEC is that you can't. Fortunately the issue is quite easily fixed, just as the problem of using IPv6 or BGP allocations for leverage is fixable. Governments don't need to wait on ICANN or the IETF to develop a quorum signing model for the DNS apex, they could and should institute one themselves and tell their infrastructure providers to chain to the quorum roots rather than the monolithic apex root. Been there, done that, outgrew the teeshirt. Interestingly, the perceived value of a common, global namespace is _MUCH_ higher than the value of a controlled, boundary constrained namespace… At least by nearly every government to date. The fragile vectors could be classed in two buckets, Human Factors Timing. /bill
Montevideo statement
I wanted to send a link to a statement that Russ and I signed as a part of a meeting that we held last week with the leaders of other Internet organisations. http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation Jari Arkko IETF Chair
Re: Montevideo statement
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:34:58AM +0300, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote a message of 10 lines which said: I wanted to send a link to a statement that Russ and I signed as a part of a meeting that we held last week with the leaders of other Internet organisations. http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance. This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer something like, to avoid shooting the messenger: They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally, due to pervasive monitoring and surveillance by powerful actor(s).
Re: Montevideo statement
This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer something like, to avoid shooting the messenger: Of course :-) We meant that the loss of privacy causes concern, not the revelations. Jari
Montevideo statement
I wanted to send a link to a statement that Russ and I signed as a part of a meeting that we held last week with the leaders of other Internet organisations. http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation Jari Arkko IETF Chair
