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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
://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
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:
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
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.
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
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
--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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
://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
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
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
53 matches
Mail list logo
