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: 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
