From lear@cisco.com Thu Feb 6 03:56:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489BC1A037C for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 03:56:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lvp6p43GqThU for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 03:55:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B2F1A00E0 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 03:55:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1285; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391687758; x=1392897358; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=C6cTiFokRqTZ/WRxjA+8LkL9AcxH1bOi5mt1G+kLqQM=; b=ZYRoCunpwLeKgqgZwHS5AOaoYSPUI3/dB2hGExzpw9BOu6ftUDfnWVTF gwmvlTt1sHSQFmuecQbkFZnU129QsirR5mBMarKpjLPV4vZhsCUalhEvC 0rnBpcz/366b+jeAlc7Wc+6dnwklodaqu5gsM1jspaPsSXefCeDy7jMkS U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlUFAC9381KQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABZgwyEELx5FnSCT0gNNgIFDAoLAgsDAgECASstCAEBiAGeE48VoSUXgSmNYgyCWYFJBJgrkiGDLjs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,793,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="4072235" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2014 11:55:56 +0000 Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.216.18]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s16BtuM7014190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:55:56 GMT Message-ID: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:55:57 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:56:00 -0000 Hi everyone, This list has been relatively quiet, and I would like to change that now. >From time to time our leaders and representatives make statements to the outside world. Those statements are often taken as organizational statements. Therefore, it seems good for us to have a healthy understanding as to what principles we think are appropriate for the IETF leadership to observe. There are some that are pretty obvious, in my opinion. They include the Open Stand Principles. We also believe in rough consensus and running code, wherever possible. In the area of Internet governance what are the important principles you believe in? On other lists such as /1net's "discuss" list, we see discussion of these sorts of questions. There is specifically a lot of talk about the multistakeholder model, as opposed to a multilateral model. There's a lot of talk about the free flow of information. I think this list could be of specific value as to how the principles apply to the work and results of the IETF. Why is this important? If we get it wrong, then critical resources can be managed by those who do not have expertise, and in ways that take into account factors that have nothing to do with actually running a network. Discuss? Eliot From sm@elandsys.com Thu Feb 6 08:29:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF141A03FE for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:29:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.325 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LyxYrFNupG3g for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:29:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28C21A03FD for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:29:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.154.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s16GSV3H010236 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:28:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1391704131; bh=uXfo+YLxZFiXIMpX1T0ezWB9PAAxvKNsNe61mu4IkmA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ItkrmOXEzQ0GO9uF4TQ48J8bmRrbms92jmADIEx3sc6Hh9lr5WmG5GOJPe73mejGf Wv6gSNCmW5J+McmCfwkTu2rWRHGVi4G0ahKQocUb+iyQt43F0UwEM2vJklBBLqd+N2 vxMoJ9XADtTaUZl44d6bezeeehArTO+L1DQA3y4E= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1391704131; i=@elandsys.com; bh=uXfo+YLxZFiXIMpX1T0ezWB9PAAxvKNsNe61mu4IkmA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=S2L9fUEoMZqJuziNj291X1YgEWUIJlQ/fwo+KJhbCESWg6d4GwiYAEmfy1SS830wg G2mRTln495LedHnNHFEFbeV1L5QSJRle3jQGz6ZHrUupQjM/YU3p4nJ6z4tqeWpQOg 93q50yP0x6EOEBfZBPs6kiJ534emOpx/LbZskcIE= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140206071627.0c5479d8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 08:13:30 -0800 To: Eliot Lear , internetgovtech@iab.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:29:07 -0000 Hi Eliot, At 03:55 06-02-2014, Eliot Lear wrote: >This list has been relatively quiet, and I would like to change that now. I'll comment. :-) >In the area of Internet governance what are the important principles you >believe in? On other lists such as /1net's "discuss" list, we see >discussion of these sorts of questions. There is specifically a lot of >talk about the multistakeholder model, as opposed to a multilateral >model. There's a lot of talk about the free flow of information. I >think this list could be of specific value as to how the principles >apply to the work and results of the IETF. Here's an excerpt from a news article: "The first signs of trouble can already be found on the balance sheets of the big players. Both [removed] and [removed] have seen precipitous falls in foreign sales, particularly in [removed]. Meanwhile, [removed] and [removed] are pleading with the government in [removed] to exert more control over the country's [removed] out of fear of a user revolt." Why should I be in favor of principles when it is the balance sheets that matters the most? >Why is this important? If we get it wrong, then critical resources can >be managed by those who do not have expertise, and in ways that take >into account factors that have nothing to do with actually running a >network. The "critical resources can be managed by those who do not have the expertise" reminds me of the greater good. It can be used to justify action or non-action where some people may the price for the benefit of others. The term "critical resources" is overused to an extent that it has lost its meaning. Regards, S. Moonesamy From dhc@dcrocker.net Thu Feb 6 10:06:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017401A01F4 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:06:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VSevWF60MR8q for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:06:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8E31A01EA for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:06:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s16I6bmG022694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 6 Feb 2014 10:06:40 -0800 Message-ID: <52F3CF0B.2000305@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:06:03 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eliot Lear , internetgovtech@iab.org References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:06:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:06:50 -0000 On 2/6/2014 3:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Therefore, it seems good for us to have a healthy > understanding as to what principles we think are appropriate for the > IETF leadership to observe. ... > Discuss? Eliot, I'm not understanding what discussion is meant to take place on this list or how it is appropriate for the IETF, as a technical body, which is what we are. The initial text I quoted above seems to be the goal you have in mind for the list, but it is sufficiently broad and vague so that it seems highly like that it will merely become yet-another venue for generic Internet governance speeches, and certainly not a place for developing consensus. Worse, the above goal either means that we want to anticipate, specify and constrain what governance-related utterances are permissible by IETF leadership. Or it means that we want the IETF to make political statements about IETF governance. The first isn't practical, IMO, and the second is highly inappropriate, IMO. I'll suggest that the deeper issue is the problem created by having IETF leadership making any kind of political/governance statements about Internet ownership or operation. Quite simply, that's not the IETF's job. Our job is making technology. We can choose what kinds of technology to make and what kinds not to make. A truly stellar example of this touching the political realm but being processed strictly in technical terms is the now iconic statement from Fred Baker, as IETF Chair, concerning the Clipper goal of creating a back-door security hole. (Apologies, but I'm not finding the pointer to that statement from Fred.) The essential point is that Fred's statement was strictly in terms of technical issues. It was along the lines of: Security mechanisms are meant to prevent disclosures. A backdoor enables disclosures and therefore creates a broken security mechanisms. We do not intentionally create broken mechanisms. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Thu Feb 6 11:21:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720DC1A0460 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:21:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WpQQAHRmCfpS for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:21:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34131A045D for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:21:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id y10so2090816pdj.4 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:21:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IUmSaQkjw0qRtvDnLOYP5RtkklGfLWyQet3PnJX8XuU=; b=wjSQHSUpb33zVUICGctqr65iaCF2dfqriBQxRdLsfX7kXcllzL7AnDyLjsMxqlHEJs MFIAhI2YpyDwVdHJeVf51q1Va2qqmh3wi8sU2YKcf3cwr+DDsHPiY1e1Nh6g9bV03eMf YAI3DSTWi5CKPkMB2RtJxd3rZ8Ku4FRB8AToMUNADUEuMA4R3fg7EX9kVnSFfaNYV0hb kAjrkK83VDvz1ppiumq+rDLpL2mSLq1EvZyxHDO7HvyQ5Yphgy+KgC1NQMcp3wTi2bpX WcO8y8kID8Sj0UTMJzXS6GJbD7cW7oJuovg6lOu6Z+oH71Qan95s6F8VkKhLPy8eQfT1 +ymA== X-Received: by 10.68.138.165 with SMTP id qr5mr14514118pbb.123.1391714460827; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:21:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.23] (33.195.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.195.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id yo9sm13596562pab.16.2014.02.06.11.20.57 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Feb 2014 11:20:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52F3E08E.6090306@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:20:46 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internetgovtech@iab.org References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F3CF0B.2000305@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <52F3CF0B.2000305@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:21:04 -0000 On 07/02/2014 07:06, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/6/2014 3:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Therefore, it seems good for us to have a healthy >> understanding as to what principles we think are appropriate for the >> IETF leadership to observe. > ... > >> Discuss? I think our goal should be for IETF spokespersons to be seen as rigorous and objective in their technical thinking and advice as possible. (I use the word "spokespersons" advisedly, rather than "leaders", since one of our claims is that we work by rough consensus.) That implies as a principle that we continue to avoid taking policy positions *unless* they are technically rooted, and that we focus on giving unbiased technical input to the "governance" discussion. I think I'm agreeing with Dave Crocker. (As a special case, I think we can take the position that open, self-organizing multi-stakeholder consensus formation in the IETF and the RIRs has demonstrably led to highly successful open interoperable technical standards and operational practices.) I must say I find it hard to add much to this, since I consider most of the Internet governance discussion to be spurious and unnecessary, for reasons clumsily expressed at https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CrossBorderInfoGovernance.pdf and https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/ClassifyingLandscape.pdf Brian From tbray@textuality.com Thu Feb 6 12:17:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6BF1A0463 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:17:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WeB2K53eFLTS for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:17:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com (mail-vc0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0773C1A0473 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:17:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id ik5so1848023vcb.23 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:17:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=amfGN2Ig6j647ZaZ5XrEPXHxbQ3obRyeymX7pJC5+zE=; b=nEXQBiekYlvGASDWb6m7eHi4M3E23qSVOI03ozbJhMwll9GY8N5v6OLhXacbhqSoUB 3hTocOS+TTDmpLzyP/j6DpoOTtGGPU3vbaDkf3u3QEk5PnobEuDmJDMqQqg3P+/bjEQn EtKerP5VbMLzOhLJaMovsZnZ/KbCeT+28oCavS8LUL0SULN7foNzxP+11i+aiMKCHeB6 7KKhoPv8vaF5ulb4Dr/5I6OvocSHemP+fz2ObQjiNOVPUedZNUp5NDjucVXxD4dFnkPc 87ad2ScpbHLvJZeTsDDox5uHJZyGKUTG6K4sCNu2k5aVLrd/jqjuIsygjzKrgEmeWFAi tPzA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFhyQi7GzE/1yDbR6TyzZYqwvfwWQyKMfUoazcce6Pf3Exz+ZrDPnVWq2qrU43UKWUw6tU MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.157.8 with SMTP id wi8mr853930vdb.46.1391717825649; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 12:17:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:17:05 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:100d:9:e181:543c:d78f:78ad] In-Reply-To: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:17:05 -0800 Message-ID: From: Tim Bray To: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160c5e4a03a8d04f1c28e1e Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:17:12 -0000 --089e0160c5e4a03a8d04f1c28e1e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is there a good place to get bootstrapped? I get a headache when I try to think about =E2=80=9CInternet governance=E2=80=9D in the abstract. What I= =E2=80=99m asking is, what sort of issues do we expect to be on the agenda? On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This list has been relatively quiet, and I would like to change that now. > > From time to time our leaders and representatives make statements to the > outside world. Those statements are often taken as organizational > statements. Therefore, it seems good for us to have a healthy > understanding as to what principles we think are appropriate for the > IETF leadership to observe. There are some that are pretty obvious, in > my opinion. They include the Open Stand Principles. We also believe in > rough consensus and running code, wherever possible. > > In the area of Internet governance what are the important principles you > believe in? On other lists such as /1net's "discuss" list, we see > discussion of these sorts of questions. There is specifically a lot of > talk about the multistakeholder model, as opposed to a multilateral > model. There's a lot of talk about the free flow of information. I > think this list could be of specific value as to how the principles > apply to the work and results of the IETF. > > Why is this important? If we get it wrong, then critical resources can > be managed by those who do not have expertise, and in ways that take > into account factors that have nothing to do with actually running a > network. > > Discuss? > > Eliot > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech > --089e0160c5e4a03a8d04f1c28e1e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is there a good place to get bootstrapped? =C2=A0I get a h= eadache when I try to think about =E2=80=9CInternet governance=E2=80=9D in = the abstract. What I=E2=80=99m asking is, what sort of issues do we expect = to be on the agenda?


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Eliot Le= ar <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,

This list has been relatively quiet, and I would like to change that now.
>From time to time our leaders and representatives make statements to the outside world. =C2=A0Those statements are often taken as organizational
statements. =C2=A0Therefore, it seems good for us to have a healthy
understanding as to what principles we think are appropriate for the
IETF leadership to observe. =C2=A0There are some that are pretty obvious, i= n
my opinion. =C2=A0They include the Open Stand Principles. =C2=A0We also bel= ieve in
rough consensus and running code, wherever possible.

In the area of Internet governance what are the important principles you believe in? =C2=A0On other lists such as /1net's "discuss" li= st, we see
discussion of these sorts of questions. =C2=A0There is specifically a lot o= f
talk about the multistakeholder model, as opposed to a multilateral
model. =C2=A0There's a lot of talk about the free flow of information. = =C2=A0I
think this list could be of specific value as to how the principles
apply to the work and results of the IETF.

Why is this important? =C2=A0If we get it wrong, then critical resources ca= n
be managed by those who do not have expertise, and in ways that take
into account factors that have nothing to do with actually running a
network.

Discuss?

Eliot
_______________________________________________
Internetgovtech mailing list
Internetgovtech@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech

--089e0160c5e4a03a8d04f1c28e1e-- From lear@cisco.com Thu Feb 6 12:24:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0C91A04C3 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:24:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.035 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iFkNTOuFAf9m for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:24:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFFD1A04C1 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:24:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2371; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391718277; x=1392927877; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=gS/Aw4XfgsvCWW/89cOgPOh0kaIxPlH6GwxDVQYIULQ=; b=UcBCDybddWzuwtz0A0RS52TzbpCg1jPCfmZp6qigzU3InJmIUQ1HuEAB dsChYx5xDIoeaKLcJmAVr+qbUgbSrv6XGHYsju962z7sFVp5dBSns58+f utFvcroROxsFy17J3kZ4wvt6zs7HHfwilxpuScAmd58SpbkPZr8G+PbTI o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQFAH/u81KQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABZgww4g1iFXbYVgQ0WdIIlAQEBBCNVARALBAEJBAYJFgsCAgkDAgECASsMDgYNAQcBAQWHfA2sEqB8F456B4JvgUkEmCuSIYMuOw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,795,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="4757487" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2014 20:24:36 +0000 Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.198.139]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s16KOZte002453 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Feb 2014 20:24:36 GMT Message-ID: <52F3EF83.3040204@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 21:24:35 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Bray References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000804080900060704040501" Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:24:40 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000804080900060704040501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Tim, On 2/6/14, 9:17 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > Is there a good place to get bootstrapped? I get a headache when I > try to think about “Internet governance” in the abstract. What I’m > asking is, what sort of issues do we expect to be on the agenda? > It's a fair question, and everyone has their favorite answer. Personally I think ISOC does a pretty good job at explaining various issues. I'll refer you to http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/internet-issues/internet-governance. Our focus of course is on what issues impact the IETF and the Internet architecture in particular (to address Dave's point, in part). Eliot --------------000804080900060704040501 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Tim,

On 2/6/14, 9:17 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
Is there a good place to get bootstrapped?  I get a headache when I try to think about “Internet governance” in the abstract. What I’m asking is, what sort of issues do we expect to be on the agenda?


It's a fair question, and everyone has their favorite answer.  Personally I think ISOC does a pretty good job at explaining various issues.  I'll refer you to http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/internet-issues/internet-governance.

Our focus of course is on what issues impact the IETF and the Internet architecture in particular (to address Dave's point, in part).

Eliot
--------------000804080900060704040501-- From eburger@standardstrack.com Thu Feb 6 18:56:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E57C71A05A3 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:56:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.122 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JCdH0VvJs7vx for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:56:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [74.124.215.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED55F1A05A0 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 18:56:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ip68-100-74-215.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.74.215]:51179 helo=[192.168.15.106]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WBbc0-0003aR-JL for internetgovtech@iab.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:56:26 -0800 From: Eric Burger Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CEEA0F9F-7660-421F-B8DB-25B7CD91A2EC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Message-Id: <743613E8-8CA3-40FE-A58E-E42DB483124C@standardstrack.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 21:56:16 -0500 References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F3CF0B.2000305@dcrocker.net> <52F3E08E.6090306@gmail.com> To: internetgovtech@iab.org In-Reply-To: <52F3E08E.6090306@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 02:56:32 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CEEA0F9F-7660-421F-B8DB-25B7CD91A2EC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Expanding on Brian=92s and Dave=92s thoughts, I think we would want the = IETF to continue to be seen as *the* source for unbiased, technical = advice and solutions. The microsecond we become *a* source for Internet = governance positions is the microsecond we lose our imprimatur as the = source for unbiased technical advice and it opens the door to more = politically oriented standards bodies setting technical regulations for = the Internet. If we feel we need an outlet for governance issues, we have the Internet = Society and other parts of the I* ecosystem for that. Sometimes the Internet governance discussions *require* technical input. = Citing Dave=92s example, Fred did not say Clipper was bad policy. He = said it was bad technology. Our contribution to the debate was why it = was bad technology. Today, there are a number of proposals, like = partitioning the Internet, assigning IP addresses based on geography, = mandating deep packet inspection, and so on that, irrespective of your = feelings about free speech, attribution, or privacy, have deep technical = issues. I would want and expect the IETF to speak to the technical = issues. I would hope the IETF does *NOT* speak to the political issues. An issue we have is that while we speak of the IETF as a quasi anarchy = without leadership or even legal form (IETF Trust notwithstanding), = people expect a public face for the organization. I would offer the IAB = and IETF Chairs are our candidates for that job. We also need to recognize that there will be many situations in which = the IAB or IESG needs to respond to a situation faster than it would be = possible for the full IETF consensus process. So, let us rephrase the original question. Rather than asking what = policy box we want to put the IAB and IETF Chairs into, we should be = asking the community for flexibility for the IAB and IETF Chairs to make = statements on *settled*, *technical* questions, presumably without a = full consensus building. On Feb 6, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter = wrote: > On 07/02/2014 07:06, Dave Crocker wrote: >> On 2/6/2014 3:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> Therefore, it seems good for us to have a healthy >>> understanding as to what principles we think are appropriate for the >>> IETF leadership to observe. >> ... >>=20 >>> Discuss? >=20 > I think our goal should be for IETF spokespersons to be seen > as rigorous and objective in their technical thinking and advice as > possible. >=20 > (I use the word "spokespersons" advisedly, rather than "leaders", = since > one of our claims is that we work by rough consensus.) >=20 > That implies as a principle that we continue to avoid taking policy > positions *unless* they are technically rooted, and that we focus > on giving unbiased technical input to the "governance" discussion. >=20 > I think I'm agreeing with Dave Crocker. >=20 > (As a special case, I think we can take the position that open, > self-organizing multi-stakeholder consensus formation in the > IETF and the RIRs has demonstrably led to highly successful open > interoperable technical standards and operational practices.) >=20 > I must say I find it hard to add much to this, since I consider > most of the Internet governance discussion to be spurious and > unnecessary, for reasons clumsily expressed at > https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CrossBorderInfoGovernance.pdf > and > https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/ClassifyingLandscape.pdf >=20 > Brian > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech --Apple-Mail=_CEEA0F9F-7660-421F-B8DB-25B7CD91A2EC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS9EtQAAoJEDY/T2tCIPW31n8P/2gGiYyzm0g3g6Dg+LdeADdU kHPIL2Qeyp6eni3Z8N1cQ6U4u5Gfj3AFlDuNK8G1KCejNWqQaJ51wWbnmB6+LWjQ 4OKr2dly2qycyH/8WdwHPX+LWz4+fqksYUGUgEJLVPFelVvALQTv2rsYojJzrnBa 84dvvrd4RluhaQonrN6+eL6xEndRE74XIgG4sHovRJd8wFb/fRNHw7uthVLIW1ur LcUq4B1ZtQHQW74P0o/QRySJflWuqjMaWU//wsaLhi4JdOnkrNJV221lczDHS8Bb oFy4yIwi3eb4L5lMyoy/UF6NkW9cOmkc+BKwwBPFn6ODGWm/EB3Sgkzeaw3Mu3nu XLM/S8P+9kblk2dmo1ezpYmQPPa3jUIelj+RLMQ9MFcPAuEOKx/YJcnndibWh7NF reAVLFLPppFrk38fGPkysNJKgV2echdZXfl0XRyCjOq5BfEf+1lMUks7c//YZQ4Q saqURdWZk2oZHwLFkbKcutzJQJi0V+NTJItmqze6OPZ5AZk+4AXCJBehcIggOh/n N+Av5w/5DdLUnZNmiBE5XVj3pcfvjquGaiqpOiTTuSr3ahQEmIahVxrBlrETpxpQ 4NLdRN5P5OF4NRHe91yvPgc1/8zuNzbr7UuNiYTMJdsBWHPYl4uTfkKBtwCJVdlK hTXGYoDsBkxD7evHLqdO =/+6R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_CEEA0F9F-7660-421F-B8DB-25B7CD91A2EC-- From hallam@gmail.com Thu Feb 6 19:55:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B83921A0346 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:55:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zKv9Pc19fVkA for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:55:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com (mail-la0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69A71A0012 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:55:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id y1so2195198lam.36 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:55:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XDZbqVVYxAO/qk2Y1J2eur+3R/au+OdLWsnOqlWJz2Y=; b=lxH+PO28ZNYaDosfonUiT3ehpB/Sp4QuPjzpJ4Z61iE9Tht/4Rb+72s14rS1Thzg8N tZsPKY66gdmGAT1h63hxJEU/0S3qTF/9v13nP9t+fFuBpVKWKVFta9xdUvgZfWWyXHuk X3ch56a1Ta/N4JFe9kNr7otR2Ysc52vvwlp4vaviM3sGEASp+Ko0/EBgSXzXUVcZKpEQ +dxSh+1/8ifLm7cQHCbBcgTUy4jelMSe8BP8QX/mVhyLs7i671capfnQWSOkQa86CKIc kemEo2uVDxwAga9OJkKheoMD/mgbE5XpwzVRV2BGDtHIPSdcrfGeUoChq7ndD2ncqchw Z9yA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.72.170 with SMTP id e10mr3915275lbv.43.1391745346666; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:55:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52F3E08E.6090306@gmail.com> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F3CF0B.2000305@dcrocker.net> <52F3E08E.6090306@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:55:46 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: Brian E Carpenter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2425801871004f1c8f717 Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 03:55:51 -0000 --001a11c2425801871004f1c8f717 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/02/2014 07:06, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 2/6/2014 3:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > >> Therefore, it seems good for us to have a healthy > >> understanding as to what principles we think are appropriate for the > >> IETF leadership to observe. > > ... > > > >> Discuss? > > I think our goal should be for IETF spokespersons to be seen > as rigorous and objective in their technical thinking and advice as > possible. > > (I use the word "spokespersons" advisedly, rather than "leaders", since > one of our claims is that we work by rough consensus.) > > That implies as a principle that we continue to avoid taking policy > positions *unless* they are technically rooted, and that we focus > on giving unbiased technical input to the "governance" discussion. > I think the point about spokespersons is important. I found it very odd when the President of MIT recently decided to make a political statement on the ASA boycott claiming to speak for the institution without bothering to first find out what the views of the institution might be. The idea that one individual speaks for an academic community of 10,000 people without bothering to consult is ridiculous unless you believe in monarchy. If a blunder like that can be made at MIT, whats it like at the other schools? Without a mechanism where the members of the IETF (and yes a lawyer would have no difficulty identifying us as members should the need arise) can vote on a policy there is nothing for a spokesperson to spoke. Where I depart is the notion that the discourse be limited to technical matters. One of the main issues in the governance debate is which parties are stakeholders in the development of Internet standards. The people who are pushing for government control of the standards process are pushing on a rope. The necessary stakeholders do not come to the IETF because that is where Internet standards are made. Internet standards are made in the IETF because that is where the necessary stakeholders choose to make standards. If there is a proposal to change the Internet routing layer then the vendors of Internet routing apparatus are necessary stakeholders, so are their major customers. They do not all have to participate but any standard that is proposed will have to meet the requirements of those necessary stakeholders to achieve deployment. I was at Oxford at the same time as David Cameron, now Prime Minister. I was never a member of the Bullingdon club but we both attended some Edmund Burke Society debates. What is not commonly known about the society is that the society was reformed in the early 1980s when the outgoing committee decided to select a President everyone hated. Since the constitution of the society did not exist, let alone have a provision for recall, there was no way to unselect him. So a new society was formed which took on all the activities of the old and went by the same name. The point is this: Power does not lie in persons or institutions or even in constitutions. Power and influence are vested in communities that consent to recognize them. The reason that governments have begun to take notice of the Internet is that they have realized that social media can act as a catalyst when a large proportion of a population withdraw their consent to be governed. --001a11c2425801871004f1c8f717 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian= .e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/02/2014 07:06, Dave = Crocker wrote:
> On 2/6/2014 3:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> =A0 =A0 Therefore, it seems good for us to have a healthy
>> understanding as to what principles we think are appropriate for t= he
>> IETF leadership to observe.
> ...
>
>> Discuss?

I think our goal should be for IETF spokespersons to be seen
as rigorous and objective in their technical thinking and advice as
possible.

(I use the word "spokespersons" advisedly, rather than "lead= ers", since
one of our claims is that we work by rough consensus.)

That implies as a principle that we continue to avoid taking policy
positions *unless* they are technically rooted, and that we focus
on giving unbiased technical input to the "governance" discussion= .

I think the point about spokespersons= is important. I found it very odd when the President of MIT recently decid= ed to make a political statement on the ASA boycott claiming to speak for t= he institution without bothering to first find out what the views of the in= stitution might be.=A0

The idea that one individual speaks for an academic com= munity of 10,000 people without bothering to consult is ridiculous unless y= ou believe in monarchy. If a blunder like that can be made at MIT, whats it= like at the other schools?

Without a mechanism where the members of the IETF (and = yes a lawyer would have no difficulty identifying us as members should the = need arise) can vote on a policy there is nothing for a spokesperson to spo= ke.


Where I depart is the notion that the di= scourse be limited to technical matters. One of the main issues in the gove= rnance debate is which parties are stakeholders in the development of Inter= net standards.

The people who are pushing for government control of th= e standards process are pushing on a rope. The necessary stakeholders do no= t come to the IETF because that is where Internet standards are made. Inter= net standards are made in the IETF because that is where the necessary stak= eholders choose to make standards.

If there is a proposal to change the Internet routing l= ayer then the vendors of Internet routing apparatus are necessary stakehold= ers, so are their major customers. They do not all have to participate but = any standard that is proposed will have to meet the requirements of those n= ecessary stakeholders to achieve deployment.


I was at Oxford at the same time as Davi= d Cameron, now Prime Minister. I was never a member of the Bullingdon club = but we both attended some Edmund Burke Society debates. What is not commonl= y known about the society is that the society was reformed in the early 198= 0s when the outgoing committee decided to select a President everyone hated= . Since the constitution of the society did not exist, let alone have a pro= vision for recall, there was no way to unselect him. So a new society was f= ormed which took on all the activities of the old and went by the same name= .

The point is this: Power does not lie in persons or ins= titutions or even in constitutions. Power and influence are vested in commu= nities that consent to recognize them.

The reason = that governments have begun to take notice of the Internet is that they hav= e realized that social media can act as a catalyst when a large proportion = of a population withdraw their consent to be governed.=A0
--001a11c2425801871004f1c8f717-- From lear@cisco.com Thu Feb 6 21:42:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27A31A05AA for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 21:42:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.704 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eu-T_k0v-mkK for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 21:42:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.203.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237831A0375 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 21:42:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2509; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391751739; x=1392961339; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uhaN1UEGJAtkbx42SXUxklfWLZ0HaB79Z5WwBl6miwQ=; b=BBjwvLvlTE8qNfzny/RjjzV9ikPtH1hP0T9vXqq37vxPDECOUMaH3lr5 sDeHadArQGHbyYG9InmaR6vPk4w4gbOa4CYoNMYJ6r2HPdHu5MTq9DAa9 EkNVYR+LqCdyIez8WTLLbVpsdXMRSzA9gTrF5t/OsQPreeGdrYZF/DX55 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAH1x9FKQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABZgwyEELt8gQoWdIIlAQEBAwEjDwE0CwwLCw4MAgUhAgIPAiwaBgEMCAEBEIdpCKwWggyfABeBKY1bgm+BSQEDmCuSIYMuOw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,798,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="10245" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2014 05:42:16 +0000 Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.161.147]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s175gF1p031631 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Feb 2014 05:42:16 GMT Message-ID: <52F47237.90608@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 06:42:15 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Burger , internetgovtech@iab.org References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F3CF0B.2000305@dcrocker.net> <52F3E08E.6090306@gmail.com> <743613E8-8CA3-40FE-A58E-E42DB483124C@standardstrack.com> In-Reply-To: <743613E8-8CA3-40FE-A58E-E42DB483124C@standardstrack.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 05:42:22 -0000 Hi Eric, I tend to agree with the approach you, Dave, and Brian put out. In fact, this is largely quite similar to what is written in RFCs 4052 and 4053, as relates to liaison relationships. There are some exceptions: we have responded to NIST at one point, regarding their proceedings on elliptical encyrption, and we will join ISOC and others in encouraging a continued open process so that we are able to give our technical opinions. On 2/7/14, 3:56 AM, Eric Burger wrote: > Sometimes the Internet governance discussions *require* technical input. Citing Dave’s example, Fred did not say Clipper was bad policy. He said it was bad technology. Our contribution to the debate was why it was bad technology. Today, there are a number of proposals, like partitioning the Internet, assigning IP addresses based on geography, mandating deep packet inspection, and so on that, irrespective of your feelings about free speech, attribution, or privacy, have deep technical issues. I would want and expect the IETF to speak to the technical issues. I would hope the IETF does *NOT* speak to the political issues. I'm sure you yourself will have found that political and technical issues are intermingled. As it happens the IAB responded years ago to proposals for country-based Internet registries. The response was technical in nature, but clearly carried political implications. > > An issue we have is that while we speak of the IETF as a quasi anarchy without leadership or even legal form (IETF Trust notwithstanding), people expect a public face for the organization. I would offer the IAB and IETF Chairs are our candidates for that job. > > We also need to recognize that there will be many situations in which the IAB or IESG needs to respond to a situation faster than it would be possible for the full IETF consensus process. Right. The purpose of this discussion is meant to provide guide posts for when that happens. > > So, let us rephrase the original question. Rather than asking what policy box we want to put the IAB and IETF Chairs into, we should be asking the community for flexibility for the IAB and IETF Chairs to make statements on *settled*, *technical* questions, presumably without a full consensus building. That wasn't a question, but that is clearly how liaisons operate, with the following modification: we often seek to make statements of fact. "The xxx WG is working on yyy" or "RFC aaaa documents the IETF's view on bbbb". Eliot From johnl@iecc.com Thu Feb 6 22:56:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F9A1A05B3 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:56:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.343 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X9Y4EZiAtv0A for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:56:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D1A1A05AE for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:56:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 31427 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2014 06:56:34 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2014 06:56:34 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=52f483a2.xn--btvx9d.k1402; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=cKVlZRADlBuUrnpFYa+k/l2IanQRDwiBWdjmhC4r7BA=; b=xq5LbqDK9KkWvtD2AWIRsi4el1L+Lsks34CbDeCrRk79LyaiVNvnII1GZDRjSpbEyUrb7XJDdCYW/LOK85zpBunHujF8Qf/5i3VtWpdnL8QGsFK0jDkmz67Gz3X3YCFjwHuXFM/IDrI9z8jkuc3n9FeEZf4L2MOH2VY3yfKA4ciuKWPXV8qPV00ZOBn3/OiVQcbu0Quid89Ml9pBQ8+ulKLEVsiqb+CEHs7onqC6n75OMHIPka2NpwUt24PQMfWB DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=52f483a2.xn--btvx9d.k1402; bh=cKVlZRADlBuUrnpFYa+k/l2IanQRDwiBWdjmhC4r7BA=; b=oiQiPMTO3TxlROuFbH5Sc2tx/QJJ8S4UtpYSA6GV8HnraDh4MIKXepv6wueDcnti/3f62yDAXWBpfMyImMmKR8NZX0jf3c0izUBo5WVZC8/9tGzew05qsglZIAXDEIq2sbIzIWuMPnUJc1wOAv0h0Tq8PzjCkx2Yv7bsZ/DWp2A3EJH/sCVL6xRyudNQXDo1Z9bFAeSpmH4oDZgttxPOU+HPcznytAGsncFaVshcsK05w5UqpjWTvJeI1hdmLOJr Date: 7 Feb 2014 06:56:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20140207065612.96396.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: internetgovtech@iab.org In-Reply-To: Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Cc: tbray@textuality.com Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 06:56:38 -0000 >Is there a good place to get bootstrapped? I get a headache when I try to >think about "Internet governance" in the abstract. What I'm asking is, what >sort of issues do we expect to be on the agenda? Having hung around ICANN for a decade, initially as a member of the ALAC, and been involved in various other ICANN-ic acronyms, I have become deeply, phenomenally cynical about anything involving Internet Governance. The reality is that whenever Governance comes up, there is a 98% chance that the actual topic is Money. (The other 2% is from an odd group of ICANN lifers who believe that it is still 1998, are unaware that people use Google, not the DNS, to find stuff on the Internet, and so have impassioned yet mind numbing arguments about issues like whether the WHO's application for .HEALTH ten years ago should have been grandfathered in the current TLD round.) For the most part, once you understand that, it's straightforward to dispose of most governance arguments. For example, high minded declarations of principle about universal access to the Internet generally mean "someone else should pay for my broadband link." Recent outrage from Brazil about US tapping their traffic should lead to questions like "why are you routing your domestic traffic through Miami?" and "a cable from Brazil to Angola to connect to the cables from Europe would be a good idea, but if you won't pay for it, neither will anyone else." The IETF needs to get involved when the money grubbing leads to bad technical decisions. Sitefinder (the *.COM wildcard) was the ur-example of this, and fortunately it turned out OK, with Verisign backing down in the face of the combined outrage of the technical community, whose concern was that it would break a lot of stuff, and other ICANN parties, whose concern was that Verisign would get all the best typosquats. Although ICANN's new TLD program is for the most part technically uninteresting, there's some places where the pressure from the money crowd is leading to dubious technical decisions. As a concrete example, last year, ICANN was finally forced to acknowledge that there is a lot of informal existing use of some TLDs, that use leaks into the public Internet, and name collisions are bad. The worst collisions are .HOME and .CORP, which should be reserved and never delegated. But some bright bulb at one of the applicants had the idea to take a snapshot of traffic at the roots, figure out what second level domains people are asking for in undelegated TLDs in that snapshot, then go ahead and delegate the TLD but reserve those second level domains. This is an idea that I can most charitably describe as really bad, and it's the sort of thing where IETF pushback would be entirely appropriate and, at this point, needed fairly urgently. There are other issues like Network Neutrality where the actual issue is that the U.S. regulators have let the ISP business collapse into a cozy vertically integrated oligopoly. I think we have useful things to say, like that the Internet is not the phone system, so well meaning demands that the oligopoly's networks treat all traffic "the same" are likely to mean that the networks collapse, and there are other, non-technical ways to deal with market power. R's, John From hallam@gmail.com Fri Feb 7 04:46:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48B91A03A7 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 04:46:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GAthEE9SZcFY for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 04:46:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x22e.google.com (mail-we0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A7A1A03A5 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 04:46:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id x55so2244590wes.19 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 04:46:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+JkHVwtbc3HEtvaFwJdGlxhVrglY2T0W6J2N0uk/7N8=; b=FVzWDgjeuuOzIsZzngg/wX6AwR1+ZEocMSoU8VYhEQV916dtrTUWJLrVvIWXdH8YRw aLfd9mSWyiq3rhMWrXjSEYJkQtX5uWwa0Pb5BDKEztudLjYvpjvjmhNUCrzhcWRHEORU bDetJY1+I2nnJaag4qHHllr9hNnpHwJ5uXlD2N7NN4eiVB7vX9yTnVx7zvQxynRNEIMs 65WvE3wSBIU4Wz7DYRzv7ZhISTzq7C27EuPwIzQgexTcHERo+m7oYFJ+Yn6bPK86++N6 b1g0hra3V3IOtMuHIXB4G6X47lyYQdOqk9p9cTx5GBed+mSIdurpFkWScgH7T57eWMeK fFsQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.110.41 with SMTP id hx9mr10701410wjb.28.1391777178350; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 04:46:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.153.97 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 04:46:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140207065612.96396.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20140207065612.96396.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 07:46:18 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: John Levine Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d89e0527ca504f1d060c0 Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Tim Bray Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:46:22 -0000 --089e010d89e0527ca504f1d060c0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:56 AM, John Levine wrote: > >Is there a good place to get bootstrapped? I get a headache when I try to > >think about "Internet governance" in the abstract. What I'm asking is, > what > >sort of issues do we expect to be on the agenda? > > Having hung around ICANN for a decade, initially as a member of the > ALAC, and been involved in various other ICANN-ic acronyms, I have > become deeply, phenomenally cynical about anything involving Internet > Governance. The reality is that whenever Governance comes up, there > is a 98% chance that the actual topic is Money. (The other 2% is from > an odd group of ICANN lifers who believe that it is still 1998, are > unaware that people use Google, not the DNS, to find stuff on the > Internet, and so have impassioned yet mind numbing arguments about > issues like whether the WHO's application for .HEALTH ten years ago > should have been grandfathered in the current TLD round.) > > For the most part, once you understand that, it's straightforward to > dispose of most governance arguments. For example, high minded > declarations of principle about universal access to the Internet > generally mean "someone else should pay for my broadband link." > Recent outrage from Brazil about US tapping their traffic should lead > to questions like "why are you routing your domestic traffic through > Miami?" and "a cable from Brazil to Angola to connect to the cables > from Europe would be a good idea, but if you won't pay for it, neither > will anyone else." > > The IETF needs to get involved when the money grubbing leads to bad > technical decisions. Sitefinder (the *.COM wildcard) was the > ur-example of this, and fortunately it turned out OK, with Verisign > backing down in the face of the combined outrage of the technical > community, whose concern was that it would break a lot of stuff, and > other ICANN parties, whose concern was that Verisign would get all the > best typosquats. > > Although ICANN's new TLD program is for the most part technically > uninteresting, there's some places where the pressure from the money > crowd is leading to dubious technical decisions. As a concrete > example, last year, ICANN was finally forced to acknowledge that there > is a lot of informal existing use of some TLDs, that use leaks into > the public Internet, and name collisions are bad. The worst > collisions are .HOME and .CORP, which should be reserved and never > delegated. But some bright bulb at one of the applicants had the idea > to take a snapshot of traffic at the roots, figure out what second > level domains people are asking for in undelegated TLDs in that > snapshot, then go ahead and delegate the TLD but reserve those second > level domains. This is an idea that I can most charitably describe as > really bad, and it's the sort of thing where IETF pushback would be > entirely appropriate and, at this point, needed fairly urgently. > > There are other issues like Network Neutrality where the actual issue > is that the U.S. regulators have let the ISP business collapse into a > cozy vertically integrated oligopoly. I think we have useful things > to say, like that the Internet is not the phone system, so well > meaning demands that the oligopoly's networks treat all traffic "the > same" are likely to mean that the networks collapse, and there are > other, non-technical ways to deal with market power. > Money and a complete lack of understanding of any national interest other than the parochial US National Interest as understood from a very narrow part of the US government. There are no technical issues that limit the number of IPv6 registries. The technical requirements for an IP address registrar are rather less complicated than those of a Certificate Authority. Like the notion that the IETF has no membership, the idea that the IESG and IAB are only making technical arguments is a convenient fiction. People are human and when they can't express the real reason for a position they will invent one and convince themselves that it is the real one. We had this in the DKIM working group when the DNS ship wanted to make DKIM carry their DNSSEC boat anchor to shore for them. The insistence on use of new DNS RRs was really about forcing deployment of a new generation of DNS infrastructure. Where this all collapses is that the technical community tends to put off the political argument by saying that nobody is raising it, then studiously ignores the voices of the people raising it. The governments meanwhile see no reason to take technical measures until there is sufficient deployment of a new infrastructure proposal to make it necessary. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --089e010d89e0527ca504f1d060c0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:56 AM, John Levine <<= a href=3D"mailto:johnl@taugh.com" target=3D"_blank">johnl@taugh.com>= wrote:
>Is there a good place = to get bootstrapped? =A0I get a headache when I try to
>think about "Internet governance" in the abstract. What I'= ;m asking is, what
>sort of issues do we expect to be on the agenda?

Having hung around ICANN for a decade, initially as a member of the ALAC, and been involved in various other ICANN-ic acronyms, I have
become deeply, phenomenally cynical about anything involving Internet
Governance. =A0The reality is that whenever Governance comes up, there
is a 98% chance that the actual topic is Money. =A0(The other 2% is from an odd group of ICANN lifers who believe that it is still 1998, are
unaware that people use Google, not the DNS, to find stuff on the
Internet, and so have impassioned yet mind numbing arguments about
issues like whether the WHO's application for .HEALTH ten years ago
should have been grandfathered in the current TLD round.)

For the most part, once you understand that, it's straightforward to dispose of most governance arguments. =A0For example, high minded
declarations of principle about universal access to the Internet
generally mean "someone else should pay for my broadband link." Recent outrage from Brazil about US tapping their traffic should lead
to questions like "why are you routing your domestic traffic through Miami?" and "a cable from Brazil to Angola to connect to the cabl= es
from Europe would be a good idea, but if you won't pay for it, neither<= br> will anyone else."

The IETF needs to get involved when the money grubbing leads to bad
technical decisions. =A0Sitefinder (the *.COM wildcard) was the
ur-example of this, and fortunately it turned out OK, with Verisign
backing down in the face of the combined outrage of the technical
community, whose concern was that it would break a lot of stuff, and
other ICANN parties, whose concern was that Verisign would get all the
best typosquats.

Although ICANN's new TLD program is for the most part technically
uninteresting, there's some places where the pressure from the money crowd is leading to dubious technical decisions. =A0As a concrete
example, last year, ICANN was finally forced to acknowledge that there
is a lot of informal existing use of some TLDs, that use leaks into
the public Internet, and name collisions are bad. =A0The worst
collisions are .HOME and .CORP, which should be reserved and never
delegated. =A0But some bright bulb at one of the applicants had the idea to take a snapshot of traffic at the roots, figure out what second
level domains people are asking for in undelegated TLDs in that
snapshot, then go ahead and delegate the TLD but reserve those second
level domains. =A0This is an idea that I can most charitably describe as really bad, and it's the sort of thing where IETF pushback would be
entirely appropriate and, at this point, needed fairly urgently.

There are other issues like Network Neutrality where the actual issue
is that the U.S. regulators have let the ISP business collapse into a
cozy vertically integrated oligopoly. =A0I think we have useful things
to say, like that the Internet is not the phone system, so well
meaning demands that the oligopoly's networks treat all traffic "t= he
same" are likely to mean that the networks collapse, and there are
other, non-technical ways to deal with market power.
<= br>
Money and a complete lack of understanding of any national in= terest other than the parochial US National Interest as understood from a v= ery narrow part of the US government.

There are no technical issues that limit the number of = IPv6 registries. The technical requirements for an IP address registrar are= rather less complicated than those of a Certificate Authority.=A0

Like the notion that the IETF has no membership, the idea th= at the IESG and IAB are only making technical arguments is a convenient fic= tion.


People are human and when the= y can't express the real reason for a position they will invent one and= convince themselves that it is the real one.

We had this in the DKIM working group when the DNS ship= wanted to make DKIM carry their DNSSEC boat anchor to shore for them. The = insistence on use of new DNS RRs was really about forcing deployment of a n= ew generation of DNS infrastructure.=A0


Where this all collapses is tha= t the technical community tends to put off the political argument by saying= that nobody is raising it, then studiously ignores the voices of the peopl= e raising it. The governments meanwhile see no reason to take technical mea= sures until there is sufficient deployment of a new infrastructure proposal= to make it necessary.

--
Website: http://h= allambaker.com/
--089e010d89e0527ca504f1d060c0-- From ocl@gih.com Fri Feb 7 09:59:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9941F1A0176 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:59:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nua4Ng3fVonp for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (salsa.gih.co.uk [IPv6:2a00:19e8:10:5::b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EFA1A0128 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:59:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1]) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F8618F3AD; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:59:49 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mahalo1; bh=S6w9nEJ78 N7qpxpqiJGCvmrnQxc=; b=Z7meP0nlQNWh36L/1t+86/6WQvneB0fwRUsLyxt5i DXGvnXyIA8yOJlLgOTUrr+J9BOv9o8CJCYuTuucMucTqZ9ioa2IAJ0myw7t3dWQD qVEAY2+Mk1WsgZ4BHwAdH2O8toaD09HcAMLT+5Vlg9iyre7blsGs32nS6PWZ6QcC Oc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mahalo1; b=Pw9 p2G8KmomCmv8Q/lOzbNJ9sSWcWHwttZmVWmzcVNq/NEuVzt0c9JvqAz6GPPMGJ4L gBcRsHYnHzd/mS8MPZm5BfaTY4TvSOJV08H06zkGo5gbm7mEr9jFVAc4EkMgBkV8 ANNoQkXYEbZD3lUuDQGEB91HFLFTNvQipJPL3UzI= Received: from [192.168.1.45] (ANice-651-1-365-133.w83-201.abo.wanadoo.fr [83.201.113.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C71CE18F3AC; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:59:48 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:59:52 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Bray , Eliot Lear References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:59:52 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 =20 On 06/02/2014 21:17, Tim Bray wrote: > Is there a good place to get bootstrapped? I get a headache when I try= to think about ?Internet governance? in the abstract. What I?m asking is, what sort of issues do we expect to be on the agenda? Those involved in Internet Governance have often needed input from technical experts and I find it sad that the very people who provide technical expertise are hard to find in the Internet Governance circles. Absent easy to access technical advice, those pushing political agendas have managed to get organisations like ICANN to sometimes make possibly terrible decisions. So technical expertise should really be represented better in those circles. On the principles of Internet Governance, I'd say the very defence of the IETF model that is under threat from politically inclined regulators wishing to put standards building under government supervision is a good reason to get involved. Kind regards, Olivier (my own views) - --=20 Olivier MJ Cr=E9pin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ =20 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS9R8YAAoJENb2Jfn69hcj4aMH/j/lq3vMNMzjwMzlquUS8XJo LVFSlB69x3y5s/YiyiqKbVBjOxFvHgNfi11ctYvsUtuQWFtoO92V6h/e4yuQ7dTI UqQO9yMv6nI6qvbNiw9mcSIar/q7XQGIQSIov5XMLSORgZ3O3uf6RmKMP4SsGbQb Y6aBZh1JTMvoTzbquV2/61rTVQINvmuAM8/czSB1MIpepCkBxytcbLiWsF3MRGqf pVFpT26IZi8FNncWNK4fVweG/o+M9Gc6pYOY6AUKlQ+PriJj3EVBf26dGk6gL3sV Mrbz5J0tqhgdEBJsbKnGDVORFJg2Wrtr8S50omVadJ0RPA3zjUnf7Kw5cRdCIY4=3D =3D7SwP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stephen.botzko@gmail.com Fri Feb 7 10:07:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92C441A03E1 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:07:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T2aiIKjWD_1x for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:07:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-x235.google.com (mail-vb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE83F1ACCF2 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id p17so2843602vbe.26 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:07:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=n9HsIB8WRS6cSj+upcNFy9AGqwKV8JmXforVV9zAyts=; b=Wo3zhd5MZ7WYtSEVEG3XWNbyQzpdO6V1N8z01WAXrt6eXtjC52YVbgoHD0dyBUpmtV xzgqEY21VEhbWn5lxDaZmexdcVS38Zvssb5kQZ/p9UvVNToVBeazKBncOjgp0dvmyDYH o2Rj+T2dkugoiZcW4gQgdV8UrLBL010oP5uxfx0y6eC1yWrIvZDnnwHoTFPpAT7yFsK4 2DGE9BAyYQEndXrfwpTwEig20DPXFDq1uHvBs8FyB4Cy3ds53aVTuIvpQnY37zz0EmJ2 QH4jECZRZO4n9R6hvp13uzC6Tnc8rf12lmMWgn8f7fKBYkW1VW4MRFPjC+cfAoxngNH1 46Bw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.109.3 with SMTP id ho3mr6049vdb.76.1391796427514; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.221.40.135 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:07:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:07:07 -0500 Message-ID: From: Stephen Botzko To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec548a717a9698804f1d4db53 Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Tim Bray , Eliot Lear Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:07:13 -0000 --bcaec548a717a9698804f1d4db53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am wondering if the ISOC lists are a better place to have this discussion= ? BR Stephen On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wro= te: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 06/02/2014 21:17, Tim Bray wrote: > > Is there a good place to get bootstrapped? I get a headache when I try > to think about ?Internet > governance? in the abstract. What I?m asking is, what sort of issues do > we expect to be on the agenda? > > Those involved in Internet Governance have often needed input from > technical experts and I find it sad that the very people who provide > technical expertise are hard to find in the Internet Governance circles. > Absent easy to access technical advice, those pushing political agendas > have managed to get organisations like ICANN to sometimes make possibly > terrible decisions. So technical expertise should really be represented > better in those circles. > > On the principles of Internet Governance, I'd say the very defence of > the IETF model that is under threat from politically inclined regulators > wishing to put standards building under government supervision is a good > reason to get involved. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > (my own views) > > - -- > Olivier MJ Cr=E9pin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS9R8YAAoJENb2Jfn69hcj4aMH/j/lq3vMNMzjwMzlquUS8XJo > LVFSlB69x3y5s/YiyiqKbVBjOxFvHgNfi11ctYvsUtuQWFtoO92V6h/e4yuQ7dTI > UqQO9yMv6nI6qvbNiw9mcSIar/q7XQGIQSIov5XMLSORgZ3O3uf6RmKMP4SsGbQb > Y6aBZh1JTMvoTzbquV2/61rTVQINvmuAM8/czSB1MIpepCkBxytcbLiWsF3MRGqf > pVFpT26IZi8FNncWNK4fVweG/o+M9Gc6pYOY6AUKlQ+PriJj3EVBf26dGk6gL3sV > Mrbz5J0tqhgdEBJsbKnGDVORFJg2Wrtr8S50omVadJ0RPA3zjUnf7Kw5cRdCIY4=3D > =3D7SwP > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech > --bcaec548a717a9698804f1d4db53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am wondering if the ISOC lists are a better pl= ace to have this discussion?

BR
Stephen
=


On Fri, Feb 7= , 2014 at 12:59 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:=

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 06/02/2014 21:17, Tim Bray wrote:
> Is there a good place to get bootstrapped? =A0I get a headache when I = try to think about ?Internet
governance? in the abstract. What I?m asking is, what sort of issues do
we expect to be on the agenda?

Those involved in Internet Governance have often needed input from technical experts and I find it sad that the very people who provide
technical expertise are hard to find in the Internet Governance circles. Absent easy to access technical advice, those pushing political agendas
have managed to get organisations like ICANN to sometimes make possibly
terrible decisions. So technical expertise should really be represented
better in those circles.

On the principles of Internet Governance, I'd say the very defence of the IETF model that is under threat from politically inclined regulators wishing to put standards building under government supervision is a good reason to get involved.

Kind regards,

Olivier
(my own views)

- --
Olivier MJ Cr=E9pin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.co= m/ocl.html


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS9R8YAAoJENb2Jfn69hcj4aMH/j/lq3vMNMzjwMzlquUS8XJo
LVFSlB69x3y5s/YiyiqKbVBjOxFvHgNfi11ctYvsUtuQWFtoO92V6h/e4yuQ7dTI
UqQO9yMv6nI6qvbNiw9mcSIar/q7XQGIQSIov5XMLSORgZ3O3uf6RmKMP4SsGbQb
Y6aBZh1JTMvoTzbquV2/61rTVQINvmuAM8/czSB1MIpepCkBxytcbLiWsF3MRGqf
pVFpT26IZi8FNncWNK4fVweG/o+M9Gc6pYOY6AUKlQ+PriJj3EVBf26dGk6gL3sV
Mrbz5J0tqhgdEBJsbKnGDVORFJg2Wrtr8S50omVadJ0RPA3zjUnf7Kw5cRdCIY4=3D
=3D7SwP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Internetgovtech mailing list
Internetgovtec= h@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech

--bcaec548a717a9698804f1d4db53-- From ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Fri Feb 7 10:38:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89FD31A0422 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:38:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.141 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id De7pwEv6yvrU for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:38:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF9B1A03CD for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.yitter.info (nat-01-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.240]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 017EE8A031 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:38:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:38:41 -0500 From: Andrew Sullivan To: internetgovtech@iab.org Message-ID: <20140207183841.GM22727@mx1.yitter.info> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:38:46 -0000 On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 06:59:52PM +0100, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > technical experts and I find it sad that the very people who provide > technical expertise are hard to find in the Internet Governance circles. Well, I was busily trying to partcipate in 1net until some committee decided that old-fashioned mailing lists had to be replaced with a fancy new web interface that required all sorts of additional activity by me. To my eye, the decision looked like an excellent way of shutting down discussion, and one that was announced as a _fait accompli_ rather than a proposal. So I'm not actually sure that everyone withing Internet governance cicles shares your goal of input from those who understand the technology. Best regards, Andrew -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com From avri@acm.org Fri Feb 7 15:17:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5691A0444 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:17:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.465 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id casRgkP5QT01 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:17:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from atl4mhob13.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob13.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D729F1A042B for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:17:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.209]) by atl4mhob13.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s17NHgIk030076 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:17:42 -0500 Received: (qmail 6398 invoked by uid 0); 7 Feb 2014 23:17:42 -0000 X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.15.42.104 X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (avri@ella.com@68.15.42.104) by 0 with ESMTPA; 7 Feb 2014 23:17:42 -0000 Message-ID: <52F56994.3030209@acm.org> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:17:40 -0500 From: Avri Doria User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internetgovtech@iab.org References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> <20140207183841.GM22727@mx1.yitter.info> In-Reply-To: <20140207183841.GM22727@mx1.yitter.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140207-1, 02/07/2014), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:21:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 23:17:45 -0000 Hi, On 07-Feb-14 13:38, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > Well, I was busily trying to partcipate in 1net until some committee > decided that old-fashioned mailing lists had to be replaced with a > fancy new web interface that required all sorts of additional activity > by me. To my eye, the decision looked like an excellent way of > shutting down discussion, and one that was announced as a _fait > accompli_ rather than a proposal. They are not shutting down the list. I think they they have been real clear on that. They are adding an extra communication channel of a type that a lot of people favor. And while they haven't fully succeeded yet, they are trying to get the forum to also have an effective email interface for those who favor that way of working. i think it is great more technical folks are getting involved in governance discussions - it is where a lot so the key skirmishes are being waged. Personally I see technical issues constantly peeking through the governance discussion. Just like i constantly see governance issues peeking through the technical discussions. I personally find it difficult to seperate the issues, though I can usually recognize which is which, kind of like two sides of a coin. The isoc lists are good, but having a primarily technical list (which the Internet Society lists aren't) exploring a technical view of the governance issues seems a good thing in my opinion. avri From sm@elandsys.com Fri Feb 7 16:01:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCCB1AD7C1 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:01:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KwVeUPbg-UwT for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E37B1A04C8 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.147.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1801MI3025324 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:01:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1391817695; bh=leCLblkDw0OWpRlKh9Ig+tCzdLwNeIlnTBtunMvn2M0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=vO7cxo22p+PSsFPtb+9EtQLZBgug6axnIbPNZ3xcSQkhWIWLxkdxe6lB5w/EYr87Q Re8RxEKX8IPbI541hmnzBZr3iEmwkCeMnaWhBN32fBZImleo3lBHCl6GAdismbMlvH gncyK4IwQVJ8pTPUSUzdONbLAGB5YZ9avSos1ptk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1391817695; i=@elandsys.com; bh=leCLblkDw0OWpRlKh9Ig+tCzdLwNeIlnTBtunMvn2M0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=r+Fdt+PwiX2s2iG6BdNFmySkNeLOQOqHjzzbenKVC+AnL324Nul6ASHJ0766FKDCv 1c/V5eNwG3trR9ViKXYjqR2oouuHqHavLUc2ejkd0Z9bbiYjA5XpNA5VUY60mgGCNF DfdkLrF2bzpqK+/5hKqqZl+dD1fXUaUAycGyBsuU= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140207151912.0bfaf738@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:51:17 -0800 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 00:01:41 -0000 Hi Olivier, At 09:59 07-02-2014, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >On the principles of Internet Governance, I'd say the very defence of >the IETF model that is under threat from politically inclined regulators >wishing to put standards building under government supervision is a good >reason to get involved. I have not seen any information to support the argument that the IETF is under threat from politically inclined regulations. I have had discussions with some regulators outside the United States and Europe and I found that they have little awareness of what the IETF does. They did not argue to have IETF standards under government supervision. Internet governance is rife with misunderstandings. There are very few people who take the time to do some fact checking. Regards, S. Moonesamy From ocl@gih.com Fri Feb 7 16:56:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7BC1AD8F3 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:56:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z6Zk1fjVpkIT for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:55:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (salsa.gih.co.uk [IPv6:2a00:19e8:10:5::b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6111AD8F2 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:55:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1]) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F6418F3AD; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:55:54 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mahalo1; bh=FURcqSg5P kqHXDiBzfpiRFnLnjo=; b=JbyhZvYC1JyPrpMUppQ60RGBxDQX6J+338DUyMwOn 4Mld0OalVb/35rjN8346pj97MeqF+Fzu0N99XeGeIzac2rrb+j1+jo9CD6wSPEEw 8QqEwh4UAvQdwwPQduTR/kq3EsQrcIpCku+wPodoa2cD96rH6uvLRy1dpWIuVcRH BU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mahalo1; b=kzF tjf7c8z2iCiSDdGMMxSed42GcQHElA2WdGmw84KRR9OgSQcJ4nL+OzxTHefA5sHU MPaSjmvNquy412FsVvDwrklILNHQFAbXPSdHA7ko8tEmMF6iK63voJJsPfFXMGS8 HeNtUGMrlqyAWfokFMiUfgBqYcSgO4HyKl2vOhaI= Received: from [192.168.1.45] (ANice-651-1-365-133.w83-201.abo.wanadoo.fr [83.201.113.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B6B518F3AC; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 00:55:53 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 01:55:59 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140207151912.0bfaf738@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140207151912.0bfaf738@resistor.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 00:56:00 -0000 Hello SM, On 08/02/2014 00:51, S Moonesamy wrote: > I have not seen any information to support the argument that the IETF > is under threat from politically inclined regulations. I have had > discussions with some regulators outside the United States and Europe > and I found that they have little awareness of what the IETF does.=20 > They did not argue to have IETF standards under government supervision.= =20 Final Acts of WCIT 12 Resolution Plen/3 (Dubai 2012): To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet --- start quote --- The World Conference on International Telecommunications (Dubai, 2012), [...] resolves to invite Member States 1 to elaborate on their respective positions on international Internet-related technical, development and public-policy issues within the mandate of ITU at various ITU forums including, inter alia, the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum, the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and ITU study groups; --- end quote --- Indeed they did not argue to have IETF standards under government supervision but also omitted in this resolution to mention support for the current model which includes the IETF. This resolution was very controversial. Kind regards, Olivier --=20 Olivier MJ Cr=E9pin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html From ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Fri Feb 7 17:26:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3471A0230 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:26:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.955 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OA_M2PEFTeoH for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:26:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (unknown [65.99.1.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F941A01E6 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:26:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s181QR8E048672 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 20:26:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-Id: <201402080126.s181QR8E048672@nic-naa.net> From: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net To: internetgovtech@iab.org Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:26:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 01:26:31 -0000 In the following paragraph John is making reference which I suspect is limited to "an odd group of ICANN lifers" of size one -- myself. > ... (The other 2% is from > an odd group of ICANN lifers who believe that it is still 1998, are > unaware that people use Google, not the DNS, to find stuff on the > Internet, and so have impassioned yet mind numbing arguments about > issues like whether the WHO's application for .HEALTH ten years ago > should have been grandfathered in the current TLD round.) In any event, Brian made the following suggestion: > (As a special case, I think we can take the position that open, > self-organizing multi-stakeholder consensus formation in the > IETF and the RIRs has demonstrably led to highly successful open > interoperable technical standards and operational practices.) After writing the specification that eventually became the Single Unix Specification I accepted a position at SRI, one funded by the US DoD and constributed to work eventually published as RFCs, e.g., 1122/1123 which Bob Braden edited. The community of contributors to IETF meetings in that period appear, in retrospect, at least to me, to have been as successful at creating open, interoperable technical standards and operational practices, as the current period, which has contributors who are not generally funded by governments. I suggest that whatever "multi-stakeholder" means that the success to which Brian refers pre-existed a delegation of authority from an agency of government, and has survived the privitization of datagram transport. Eric From masinter@adobe.com Fri Feb 7 17:50:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87EEC1AD8DC for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:50:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EQNyG_2ad7dM for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:50:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0204.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1421AD8D8 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:50:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.141.91.21) by BL2PR02MB308.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.141.91.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.868.8; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 01:50:24 +0000 Received: from BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.91.21]) by BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.91.21]) with mapi id 15.00.0868.013; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 01:50:24 +0000 From: Larry Masinter To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance Thread-Index: AQHPJC5maDHx3EVPa0CQ5ajWbQEnGJqqFnaAgAAmP3A= Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 01:50:23 +0000 Message-ID: <10f0676ff3a4451cbb1f47a1f988c043@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [50.184.24.49] x-forefront-prvs: 01165471DB x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019001)(199002)(189002)(74316001)(87266001)(15202345003)(19300405004)(87936001)(2656002)(85306002)(80976001)(47736001)(49866001)(47976001)(4396001)(50986001)(16601075003)(19580395003)(83322001)(69226001)(56816005)(90146001)(74366001)(81542001)(81342001)(85852003)(76786001)(76576001)(83072002)(63696002)(74876001)(65816001)(76796001)(66066001)(80022001)(79102001)(76482001)(56776001)(54316002)(53806001)(92566001)(54356001)(59766001)(77982001)(93136001)(16236675002)(74706001)(15975445006)(95416001)(31966008)(81816001)(81686001)(51856001)(86362001)(33646001)(46102001)(93516002)(94946001)(94316002)(47446002)(74662001)(74502001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR02MB308; H:BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:50.184.24.49; FPR:BCF6F97C.1CF2E808.B7D343B4.78E176FC.20142; InfoNoRecordsA:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_10f0676ff3a4451cbb1f47a1f988c043BL2PR02MB307namprd02pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: adobe.com Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 01:50:28 -0000 --_000_10f0676ff3a4451cbb1f47a1f988c043BL2PR02MB307namprd02pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Some previous work which was started in W3C TAG but the other TAG members d= idn't want to pursue further: http://masinter.blogspot.com/2012/12/governance-and-web-standards.html http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/governanceFramework.html http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/governanceFramework-2012-07-19.html and some work specifically on the relationship of governance and hyperlinki= ng: http://www.w3.org/TR/publishing-linking/ http://blogs.adobe.com/standards/2013/07/24/linking-and-the-law/ Another tack is to look at the operational and technical requirements of various regulatory and compliance requirements, along the lines of https://www.unifiedcompliance.com/ but specifically directed toward requirements for Internet-connected services. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net --_000_10f0676ff3a4451cbb1f47a1f988c043BL2PR02MB307namprd02pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Some previous work whi= ch was started in W3C TAG but the other TAG members didn’t want to pu= rsue further:

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

http://masinte= r.blogspot.com/2012/12/governance-and-web-standards.html

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/g= overnanceFramework.html

http://www.w3.org/200= 1/tag/doc/governanceFramework-2012-07-19.html

 <= /p>

and some work specificall= y on the relationship of governance and hyperlinking:

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

http://www.w3.org/TR/publishing-linking/

http://blogs.adobe.com/= standards/2013/07/24/linking-and-the-law/

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

Another tack is to look a= t the operational and technical requirements of

various regulatory and co= mpliance requirements, along the lines of

https://www.unifiedcompliance.com/ but specifical= ly directed toward

requirements for Internet= -connected services.

 <= /p>

Larry

--

http://larry.masinter.net

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

--_000_10f0676ff3a4451cbb1f47a1f988c043BL2PR02MB307namprd02pro_-- From paf@frobbit.se Fri Feb 7 23:10:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB2811A05B0 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 23:10:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.786 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dHUCKt1Plfq6 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 23:10:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49E61A029D for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 23:10:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ix-2.local (frobbit.cust.teleservice.net [85.30.128.225]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6609B1FD7A; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 08:10:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52F5D849.2010100@frobbit.se> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:10:01 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avri Doria , internetgovtech@iab.org References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> <20140207183841.GM22727@mx1.yitter.info> <52F56994.3030209@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <52F56994.3030209@acm.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kGG9K0Oe2jXwtBXC39POaxeXRHeUWFD6w" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 07:10:07 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --kGG9K0Oe2jXwtBXC39POaxeXRHeUWFD6w Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Let me be very very clear, frank and honest here. I am an email person. I know and have seen that the more things happen "on a web page" I simply do not deal with it. I have seen similar for people being used to the web, they ignore email. I think in general, we choose each one of us a preferred way of communicating, and we want all communication. But, to 1Net. I was hating the discussion on the mailing list. But I loved the mailing list. One day I was contacted asked whether I wanted to test and try out a web forum that could be used for 1Net. I have no idea where the decision was made, how the selection of the software was made, and to be honest, at this point in time, I do not care. I think to some degree "the community" is too much looking at how decisions where made -- even good decisions -- to the point that no one want to make decisions. Not go= od. Anyway, I of course as an email person was against this. Like you Andrew. I asked all the questions, and of course not all responses existed. So I had to start use the forum -- in beta mode. And lot of things I asked for existed. It worked. If I had responded to a message in a thread on the web, I got in email the responses, as text, not as just links to the forum. I could respond via email, and the responses ended up in the forum. I was able to work via email. Yes, there are some things I forgot to test, for example how to get a notifications of what new threads had been created, and I blame myself for that. I have still not had time to test that as well. But Andrew and others that like me love email. This shit do work better than most things I have seen. I was very negative as well, but changed my mind. So please give it a try! Patrik --kGG9K0Oe2jXwtBXC39POaxeXRHeUWFD6w Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iD8DBQFS9dhMrMabGguI180RAqEnAJ9qjUVD/59gh09EFrZf6eHhazDlAgCgic+h wSh1J8Rt0oNslZt0M081LYg= =AKU4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kGG9K0Oe2jXwtBXC39POaxeXRHeUWFD6w-- From sm@elandsys.com Sat Feb 8 03:40:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA591A00C4 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 03:40:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uTwLfesuvklM for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 03:40:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC661A00BC for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 03:40:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.147.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s18BeCqk019967 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Feb 2014 03:40:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1391859625; bh=gT2IDUfewWqz66fJJX3xQLggcOHe9b4JQbtA9C0Re8Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=x0ScXKOaBhSf1txnXi7jy9I/lotoMsbYN7n9eWWpeUqqrXxZcnqGHM7DrvSoxxr+C 6s3RKiE12fqBtZrWNT/0iK8vwSNWp5erwaN1qxGALbVN2EBBcbXWR05gJmgL/9d8bY QubYBxIXzLCs3jHShYKyamRCIGCnbQfi7R7zQq6k= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1391859625; i=@elandsys.com; bh=gT2IDUfewWqz66fJJX3xQLggcOHe9b4JQbtA9C0Re8Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=IBiVbYGJIWNjBT4sGdbwJGWeW0gE/oC2KGSC1YCUFsabe4g4UYGHckeYgRHF5ANCs iibHr55Y4IIfXscIDTtA+TDgD3VBa0iyoIyXzbbOqj4nV8j6qv3Vq6V1+n+6UAJt6a pBHkTsqBuYy/9pFcy8sp053XiqjmK5c0vLHbQ3sE= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140208010533.0b2ddf40@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 03:31:39 -0800 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140207151912.0bfaf738@resistor.net> <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:40:32 -0000 Hi Oliver, At 16:55 07-02-2014, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >Final Acts of WCIT 12 Resolution Plen/3 (Dubai 2012): To foster an >enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet > >--- start quote --- > >The World Conference on International Telecommunications (Dubai, 2012), >[...] > >resolves to invite Member States >1 to elaborate on their respective positions on international >Internet-related technical, >development and public-policy issues within the mandate of ITU at >various ITU forums including, >inter alia, the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum, the Broadband >Commission for Digital >Development and ITU study groups; > >--- end quote --- The list of signatories (countries) is at http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html A number of those countries already take up their Internet-related technical, development and public-policy issues within the ITU. >Indeed they did not argue to have IETF standards under government >supervision but also omitted in this resolution to mention support for >the current model which includes the IETF. This resolution was very >controversial. The simple question is whether it would be a problem for the IETF. If the answer is yes something would have to be done about it, if the answer is no the matter can be ignored. A "yes" would require the support of the IETF Community. That can be difficult to achieve. Regards, S. Moonesamy From suzworldwide@gmail.com Sat Feb 8 09:23:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89001A03DE for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:23:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RW11sNP1hPZy for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:23:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D7E1A01F1 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:23:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id p10so4422692pdj.15 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:23:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HbJLC82Qs9JX3mng8eBlq6ng3Vx3sbmIHaNBvzErQWs=; b=fQGmbN9t2DXMHrqaU3NttOb9vo9ygfW2blr+ezYNLMgwmHi6OOrlys/wcDSohhWgMF oNRhqjYEMvJoh2qI4wYiOV8r/8uGOwlPuAeIh+X1nSFI5jss1ch9uEn1pwQ/NEnhbLRv T6yVNOJqG18DWfS+iVSxLloZa9EfHNOZBOwbbG/z5fMLCNvV2FRq2RtFa/rzESS436O2 j5m8eYr8tMcDZdRt4k/cmZ+ExL7KPqc/TMY7cVVJCAqDOvmhK90ofMTg2H40HcIBjZC2 pRFouRbA+zayIzFywCGDqga8S5K1mso+aWO/Rpz4Qs1sjf8gUkSqXJTbR8lLHoymtavt d4hA== X-Received: by 10.68.129.201 with SMTP id ny9mr27344083pbb.70.1391880198384; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:23:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from [142.131.238.154] ([142.131.238.154]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vx10sm64211067pac.17.2014.02.08.09.23.17 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:23:17 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Suzanne Woolf In-Reply-To: <52F56994.3030209@acm.org> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:23:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3A4A2F6E-541C-4215-90CF-3EF4CC551C73@gmail.com> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> <20140207183841.GM22727@mx1.yitter.info> <52F56994.3030209@acm.org> To: Avri Doria X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: [Internetgovtech] interaction meta Re: Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 17:23:20 -0000 This conversation is distressingly meta, and probably not what Eliot had = in mind. But I think it might offer some insight on what "we" face in = trying to participate in discussion about "internet governance" and why = it's important to do it anyway if we can. On Feb 7, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 07-Feb-14 13:38, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> Well, I was busily trying to partcipate in 1net until some committee >> decided that old-fashioned mailing lists had to be replaced with a >> fancy new web interface that required all sorts of additional = activity >> by me. To my eye, the decision looked like an excellent way of >> shutting down discussion, and one that was announced as a _fait >> accompli_ rather than a proposal. >=20 >=20 > They are not shutting down the list. I think they they have been real = clear on that. >=20 > They are adding an extra communication channel of a type that a lot = of people favor. >=20 > And while they haven't fully succeeded yet, they are trying to get the = forum to also have an effective email interface for those who favor that = way of working. Having volunteered in a fit of irrationality for the 1Net Steering = Committee, I think I'm one of "them" and can add to this. I can assure folks here that it's been raised quite unequivocally, on = the list and in the SC, that if input by senior technical people is = desired (and I believe it is), it has to be possible to participate in = the 1Net discussion forum entirely by email. People who want to be able = to participate entirely by using a web interface should also be able to = do that. In addition, the exact interrelationship of the two interfaces isn't = clear, and wasn't before the web forum was launched (Patrik comments on = this elsewhere in the thread). It's obvious by inspection that people = formerly subscribed to the email list still are and can continue to use = it. Beyond that, there seems to be some ambiguity about how to = participate going forward. On yesterday's SC call, clarification was = requested, and promised, to the full list. I and others will keep pushing for continued full participation by = email-only for those who prefer that, and for clarity about how the = forum works for everyone.=20 The situation isn't perfect. And I think the lack of clarity did at = least as much to push people away from the 1Net list as the attempt to = deploy the web-based interface. At the same time, I understand what need = the team was attempting to meet; they were attempting, if you will, to = improve the S/N ratio in the discussion. In the IETF and other technical = fora, we have ways of doing that. This was an attempt to do it in ways = more familiar to other communities. Bottom line, I don't think the decisions here were well-executed. = Frankly, the SC is still trying to work out exactly what the role of = 1Net is and what decisions the SC needs to be involved in. But I don't = think anyone was trying to kill discussion or drive "us" away. I also = don't think a poorly-executed set of decisions here means that it's = impossible to have interaction about "internet governance" that includes = us along with others. It does mean some patience with missteps, and = speaking up when we don't like the decisions made. > i think it is great more technical folks are getting involved in = governance discussions - it is where a lot so the key skirmishes are = being waged. Personally I see technical issues constantly peeking = through the governance discussion. Just like i constantly see governance = issues peeking through the technical discussions. I personally find it = difficult to seperate the issues, though I can usually recognize which = is which, kind of like two sides of a coin. I agree with this and want to amplify: internet governance discussions = are simply missing some important insights when they're conducted = entirely by non-technical people. Participants tend to assume that = whatever they want from the infrastructure is either already there or is = entirely an implementation concern. Often these assumptions are tangled = up in stereotypes about engineers and engineering, overlapping = terminology, assorted layer violations, and occasionally (not often) = malice. This would be merely a curiosity if the people involved weren't = also prone to act on those assumptions, in ways that limit us and limit = the internet. Some will listen if we speak up, and modify their = assumptions and actions because we did. It's not always obvious when it = happens. >=20 > The isoc lists are good, but having a primarily technical list (which = the Internet Society lists aren't) exploring a technical view of the = governance issues seems a good thing in my opinion. Yep. And to Eliot's point in his original post, giving IETF folks some = guidance (as formal leadership or otherwise) where "our" best = contribution to internet governance discussions lie is also worth doing. = I hope we can do that too. best, Suzanne From johnl@iecc.com Sat Feb 8 09:31:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFAC1A045C for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:31:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.343 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gSBstt5elKjW for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:31:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5681A03FE for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:31:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 26795 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2014 17:31:27 -0000 Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2014 17:31:27 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=52f669ef.xn--yuvv84g.k1402; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=ysE6+Z8hOiSVFbJrfxJ+0DfitbtzMsiXnFRYzcbsIVQ=; b=s56pBlK0VGrMlE9pPRdg28T7SaXcJYuoH1jTnOJhynPeu8Lryu3tLbdgde736P6yfJghtouhAKZPI/pWAyj3plbPMuv9MJLfHBDdVa6Zj6LhLscojQoZm2N+c1Nao7u6bfhEbc+2zZPy8OiuvfUizsY5uiZP1f8xNkz4tlL6Ud1Vhjk4vf+LndsgnKVnpcJ7KP9/ITMaUoOP7wONylu1OZiICJddzF0VYJh1KI6xogZyHO7D2Y/V+qN8KgetOIfZ DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=52f669ef.xn--yuvv84g.k1402; bh=ysE6+Z8hOiSVFbJrfxJ+0DfitbtzMsiXnFRYzcbsIVQ=; b=PC6MWAh+Bdw19w5xVgQ+Obn+LqSkxW6DH8gunU2KgiNew/I3uNyJSuoSTBp1GOsEe3EDhdG+LGk02fLlLxpXalUUWEGO9/lX65M95zJ0+XMISIK7GDSBbGtjmigPmJ92ULUSFKvpQsT6cm1OQdjqJjiIEQVomZHMdBAcQ9Kfx/gF+s/n2U6S7QMKMMylaoz37K1PxGhDVt8QQ4BXD6CxZ7X38yhXaD2nEMd56je+19J+DiNFA/3MIZJyjPfoZ7/9 Date: 8 Feb 2014 17:31:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> From: "John Levine" To: internetgovtech@iab.org In-Reply-To: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> Organization: X-Headerized: yes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Cc: ocl@gih.com Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 17:31:30 -0000 >The World Conference on International Telecommunications (Dubai, 2012), >[...] Remember a few messages back when I said it's 98% about Money? The way that WCIT jumped the shark is the most extreme example yet. Back in the good old days, small countries got a vast revenue stream of telephone settlements, with the ITU as clearinghouse. A few decades ago the rich countries led by the American FCC forced the settlements down to actual costs, which means they've disappeared. There are more small countries than big ones, and their dream has been to get their settlements back via the Internet. (The fact that there is no workable way to do it since packets are not phone calls is irrelevant.) WCIT went totally off the rails, and ended with Europe, North America, and all the other rich countries walking out. It's pretty easy to see what was going on when you see who signed, e.g., Brazil and Argentina did, Chile didn't. The other 2% was slightly more reasonable, complaints about stuff like spying and port filtering, but they'll never be resolved since there is no way that the Netherlands will accept Saudi Arabia's content standards or vice versa. and countries will always spy on each other. I don't see much technical content here other than perhaps Phill's point that multiple IPv6 registries wouldn't be the end of the world so long as they were run competently, e.g., they don't give exactly the same number of addresses to each country. R's, John PS: Olivier is too modest to tell you that he is the head of the ICANN ALAC, which has arranged for each of its consistutent organizations (ALS) to send a representative on an all-expense paid junket to London for the June ICANN meeting. From dhc@dcrocker.net Sat Feb 8 09:38:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6D31A03FE for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:38:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZQhEAgvRELXR for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:38:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF011A03F5 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:38:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s18Hbujx004627 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 8 Feb 2014 09:37:59 -0800 Message-ID: <52F66B4E.8020803@dcrocker.net> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:37:18 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Suzanne Woolf References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> <20140207183841.GM22727@mx1.yitter.info> <52F56994.3030209@acm.org> <3A4A2F6E-541C-4215-90CF-3EF4CC551C73@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3A4A2F6E-541C-4215-90CF-3EF4CC551C73@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:38:00 -0800 (PST) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] interaction meta Re: Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 17:38:01 -0000 On 2/8/2014 9:23 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Frankly, the SC is still trying to work out exactly what the role of > 1Net is and what decisions the SC needs to be involved in. Candor is always appreciated, and especially when it is (or should be considered to be) this unfortunate. But if the purpose of the group was not reasonably clear when it was started, then what was the point in starting it? It's not as if there has been a shortage of venues for discussing Internet governance. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From suzworldwide@gmail.com Sat Feb 8 10:27:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9261F1A055B for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 10:27:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bp5qNQUa9LhD for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 10:27:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8F11A0548 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 10:27:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id kx10so4517582pab.7 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:27:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=LU86tMQHrc8vjV3BVk1MZtX/tmkry3cx+Pj5H+rRaSo=; b=QMfryauHKojSezCTGzesXDPXzAC5cbaDauMidHlC8EMQWEbdrZeYut4Jb31CBAJYN2 YmcwP9i/zi2D/NFJQUeXHGmEC3dtn2M7VZbfqlIBSfpgkpoOfJUjPpA5O1aTHHtP3+sm 4633zEMKwRRsiMd5UaA8UlWktwh6Y/CyAvomu8Wu6x4boGlJuyi62n4D7xxGVJxjmFgH FMkMQea+n/C285eJyezO81E5LNpJJH513mLHXHlQoHVWN8z8Yp2KpHPsxuvsK9OZ2r4C Kjay8GvVL9EfU2u/5kVm0aL+V0jm5A6VaNi2ZptYHGdI0ZauhcJwBszh/X7zDDbMqEco pslg== X-Received: by 10.68.171.4 with SMTP id aq4mr27552044pbc.150.1391884076120; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:27:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [142.131.238.154] ([142.131.238.154]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id yo9sm65352379pab.16.2014.02.08.10.27.54 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:27:55 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Suzanne Woolf In-Reply-To: <52F66A41.8010900@bbiw.net> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:27:54 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6BBAECC1-1AA8-4462-893A-5E7488255F16@gmail.com> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> <20140207183841.GM22727@mx1.yitter.info> <52F56994.3030209@acm.org> <3A4A2F6E-541C-4215-90CF-3EF4CC551C73@gmail.com> <52F66A41.8010900@bbiw.net> To: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] interaction meta Re: Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 18:27:57 -0000 On Feb 8, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/8/2014 9:23 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: >> Frankly, the SC is still trying to work out exactly what the role of >> 1Net is and what decisions the SC needs to be involved in. >=20 >=20 > Candor is always appreciated, and especially when it is (or should be = considered to be) this unfortunate. >=20 > But if the purpose of the group was not reasonably clear when it was = started, then what was the point in starting it? >=20 > It's not as if there has been a shortage of venues for discussing = Internet governance. A fair question, and one to which I can only give a personal, individual = answer. The purpose involved, per the statement the IAB posted as = http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/monte= video-statement-on-the-future-of-internet-cooperation/: "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." The implementation of that somewhat high-minded idea, in terms of = specific activities and actors, is where the challenges lie. But the = idea is pretty clear, at least to the (admittedly, perhaps = "unfortunate") likes of me. What's different about 1Net has been that at least some of us are = attempting to force it to include folks who don't normally participate = in "internet governance" discussions in those other venues, but who care = about engagement on those issues (often just to say "that's not a = problem you have, you'd be better off addressing a different problem") = and whose starting point is a technical orientation. We thought that one = of the things that the Montevideo Statement was talking about, and = rightly so, was widening the discussion between people who know how = things like IP addresses actually work and people who don't but are = trying, earnestly, to support an open, interoperable internet against = those other forces mentioned-- fragmentation, nationalization, etc. Some days this looks more feasible than others, of course. Suzanne From lear@cisco.com Sat Feb 8 11:05:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C7481A0560 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:05:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id elL5mAvpiIhQ for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:05:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90AC91A0443 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:05:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1411; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391886302; x=1393095902; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=E7Yq8npp/VtUaz6xQedhLo71bzfAA/PrHHa+2iXaJu8=; b=JlqQf3rwjlXwd/rC07K8mF0scQ+gqNhh7z2yLjkXF/GYhRQdWpSqubY2 A2k5D3tt/OvY+mdOE7CCwrEIwKejS2Jo6a3tTvndN5dQ23q/DySxDk1q0 8guGxAZ/2K4oM0CiI3sBw/g2ElEX0DWMGdXyS0QdId5Wh8/w7jJSXd5Jq o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAJx/9lKQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABZgwyEELxXgQgWdIIlAQEBBCNVARALGAICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgErGgYBDAEHAQGIAah1oDwXgSmNVAeCb4FJAQOYK5Ihgy47 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,807,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="4134216" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2014 19:05:01 +0000 Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.219.248]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s18J4xbV031957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:05:00 GMT Message-ID: <52F67FDB.9080004@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:04:59 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: S Moonesamy , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140207151912.0bfaf738@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140207151912.0bfaf738@resistor.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 19:05:03 -0000 Hi SM, On 2/8/14, 12:51 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > > I have not seen any information to support the argument that the IETF > is under threat from politically inclined regulations. I have had > discussions with some regulators outside the United States and Europe > and I found that they have little awareness of what the IETF does. > They did not argue to have IETF standards under government supervision. > > Internet governance is rife with misunderstandings. There are very > few people who take the time to do some fact checking. Well indeed one reason we should have our leadership in the room is so that the Internet doesn't become an accidental victim of some regulatory action that has unintended consequences. I think it's great, by the way, that you're talking to people about the IETF. It's good for them to know what we do, and that they too can both participate and lead, as you have done. The areas I have personally addressed have been largley around allocation of assigned numbers. We need that function to work properly, be it for addresses, TCP/UDP port numbers, ASNs, or some other code point. We should also at least be aware of proposals that have technical implications. A classic case is when someone wants to know exactly the path a specific packet has taken or will take. "I don't want my packets going through the Grand Duchy of Fenwick!" Eliot From dhc@dcrocker.net Sat Feb 8 12:57:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9ED1A0610 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:57:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b9H-pi6JnX3k for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:57:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9C11A060E for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:57:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s18KvfBP007227 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:57:44 -0800 Message-ID: <52F69A1F.2020605@dcrocker.net> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:57:03 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Suzanne Woolf References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> <20140207183841.GM22727@mx1.yitter.info> <52F56994.3030209@acm.org> <3A4A2F6E-541C-4215-90CF-3EF4CC551C73@gmail.com> <52F66A41.8010900@bbiw.net> <6BBAECC1-1AA8-4462-893A-5E7488255F16@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6BBAECC1-1AA8-4462-893A-5E7488255F16@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:57:44 -0800 (PST) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] interaction meta Re: Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:57:46 -0000 On 2/8/2014 10:27 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > "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." I don't want to sound curmudgeonly but that's the same sort of language that has been used repeatedly over the last 15+ years, starting with the community chaos that eventually produced ICANN. It's all sounds very high-minded but actually has no meaningful semantics. There are always good folk, such as yourself, who try to steer the activity in useful directions, but it's difficult to argue that any of the previous efforts were in fact constructively useful. The underlying problem is how many different interest groups wind up aggregating to produce entropy (or worse), when the topic is as generic as governance, in the absence of a very clear, very pragmatic target outcome. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From hallam@gmail.com Sat Feb 8 13:11:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527301A0616 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:11:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4gy2Ny7PBn56 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:11:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A93A1A04D1 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:11:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id c6so3762254lan.11 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:11:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SXDLMveF7ygFehauIRHoJpa/myiKdLKgsTEdeVqgcy8=; b=jarzSyhBrh6ZykSq/Fg9c9KAkrTOpV9ukd2OJ3B1Kq5bzygmOsB45D4IKsjN8lynW5 4mKG0+hmmMqN/UmKwHgCfvY8PZDpUWbtu9JfR6A1scwZGoWLDgUbfekR1kxT4XDc+Y/z C0B8KTCR1VoR1mydNpVY4FmD5fPOAyQUma9vxKxHDWFEWMiaJGMfRlZdAEYQIik9+evO cM1rrtrxGU5iJlD+HAoDQGEXLBI0QFrq1WxR0ufjh9KyJRisvpyH/9k8v4HUhW0HOTYz 5TSfSG5/0CiJHXesBAf3ceqbWbwMN5KlJakQnnUnlKw9rSHupmZresRtnt3j/xbD1PRG EE8g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.137.65 with SMTP id qg1mr14724919lbb.7.1391893874143; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:11:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:11:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 16:11:14 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: John Levine Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0116047eeef6bc04f1eb8b25 Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cr=E9pin=2DLeblond?= , internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:11:22 -0000 --089e0116047eeef6bc04f1eb8b25 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:31 PM, John Levine wrote: > >The World Conference on International Telecommunications (Dubai, 2012), > >[...] > > Remember a few messages back when I said it's 98% about Money? The > way that WCIT jumped the shark is the most extreme example yet. Back > in the good old days, small countries got a vast revenue stream of > telephone settlements, with the ITU as clearinghouse. A few decades > ago the rich countries led by the American FCC forced the settlements > down to actual costs, which means they've disappeared. > > There are more small countries than big ones, and their dream has been > to get their settlements back via the Internet. (The fact that there > is no workable way to do it since packets are not phone calls is > irrelevant.) WCIT went totally off the rails, and ended with Europe, > North America, and all the other rich countries walking out. It's > pretty easy to see what was going on when you see who signed, e.g., > Brazil and Argentina did, Chile didn't. > And don't forget that in many cases its the personal incomes of the corrupt government officials rather than the national interest that is being defended. For example, the nephew of the minister is running the telco and giving a kickback. > The other 2% was slightly more reasonable, complaints about stuff like > spying and port filtering, but they'll never be resolved since there > is no way that the Netherlands will accept Saudi Arabia's content > standards or vice versa. and countries will always spy on each other. > Russia has been very friendly to Internet criminals and their people have suggested in conferences that they would be willing to become very unfriendly to them and make some arrests if only the Western powers would stop allowing 'Information terrorism'. By which they mean the type of activities Pussy Riot perform because they don't want 'a shirtless man on a horse' to be the leader of their country. > I don't see much technical content here other than perhaps Phill's > point that multiple IPv6 registries wouldn't be the end of the world > so long as they were run competently, e.g., they don't give exactly > the same number of addresses to each country. > Actually, my proposal was to do exactly that and give 1/(2^32) of the total IPv6 address space to each country. This would mean every country controlled an IPv4 sized space of /64 subnets. Which is demonstrably sufficient under any but the most extreme use scenarios. And even if China or India or one of the biggest countries was to run out, they could always buy space from Andora or Monaco or one of the other countries. As with BitCoin etc. the initial allocation matters a lot less to the practicality of the scheme than ability to trade. International satellite slots were allocated on a fixed allocation per country basis and the smaller countries all put their slots up for sale (or more precisely, rent). What irritated me about that issue is that a purely parochial issue, preserving the interests of the RIRs was sandbagged by bogus technical claims. That misuse of the technical authority damages future attempts to make use of it. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --089e0116047eeef6bc04f1eb8b25 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:31 PM, John Levine <= johnl@taugh.com>= ; wrote:
>The World Conference on International Te= lecommunications (Dubai, 2012),
>[...]

Remember a few messages back when I said it's 98% about Money? =A0The way that WCIT jumped the shark is the most extreme example yet. =A0Back
in the good old days, small countries got a vast revenue stream of
telephone settlements, with the ITU as clearinghouse. =A0A few decades
ago the rich countries led by the American FCC forced the settlements
down to actual costs, which means they've disappeared.

There are more small countries than big ones, and their dream has been
to get their settlements back via the Internet. =A0(The fact that there
is no workable way to do it since packets are not phone calls is
irrelevant.) =A0WCIT went totally off the rails, and ended with Europe,
North America, and all the other rich countries walking out. =A0It's pretty easy to see what was going on when you see who signed, e.g.,
Brazil and Argentina did, Chile didn't.

=
And don't forget that in many cases its the personal incomes of th= e corrupt government officials rather than the national interest that is be= ing defended. For example, the nephew of the minister is running the telco = and giving a kickback.=A0

=A0
The other 2% was slightly more reasonable, complaints about stuff like
spying and port filtering, but they'll never be resolved since there is no way that the Netherlands will accept Saudi Arabia's content
standards or vice versa. and countries will always spy on each other.

Russia has been very friendly to Internet cr= iminals and their people have suggested in conferences that they would be w= illing to become very unfriendly to them and make some arrests if only the = Western powers would stop allowing 'Information terrorism'. By whic= h they mean the type of activities Pussy Riot perform because they don'= t want 'a shirtless man on a horse' to be the leader of their count= ry.

=A0
I don't see much technical content here other than perhaps Phill's<= br> point that multiple IPv6 registries wouldn't be the end of the world so long as they were run competently, e.g., they don't give exactly
the same number of addresses to each country.

Actually, my proposal was to do exactly that and give 1/(2^32) of th= e total IPv6 address space to each country.

This w= ould mean every country controlled an IPv4 sized space of /64 subnets. Whic= h is demonstrably sufficient under any but the most extreme use scenarios. = And even if China or India or one of the biggest countries was to run out, = they could always buy space from Andora or Monaco or one of the other count= ries.

As with BitCoin etc. the initial allocation ma= tters a lot less to the practicality of the scheme than ability to trade.

International satellite slots were allocated on a f= ixed allocation per country basis and the smaller countries all put their s= lots up for sale (or more precisely, rent).


What irritated me about that issue is th= at a purely parochial issue, preserving the interests of the RIRs was sandb= agged by bogus technical claims. That misuse of the technical authority dam= ages future attempts to make use of it.



--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
--089e0116047eeef6bc04f1eb8b25-- From jcurran@istaff.org Sat Feb 8 13:57:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D3B1A0432 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:57:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BPdfZHc4cLlH for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:57:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BE61A0428 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:57:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-108-45-30-69.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([108.45.30.69] helo=[192.168.1.9]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WCFtn-0002jL-S0; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:57:19 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 108.45.30.69 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19abO/XYmQ1DqcXyfSXwNvN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: John Curran In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 16:57:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Phillip Hallam-Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cr=E9pin-Leblond?= , internetgovtech@iab.org, John Levine Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:57:24 -0000 On Feb 8, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker = wrote: > ... > What irritated me about that issue is that a purely parochial issue, = preserving the interests of the RIRs was sandbagged by bogus technical = claims. Phillip -=20 =20 Interesting characterization; one that I would disagree with for = several reasons, but I'll constrain myself to the technical ones on this list -=20 Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the present lack of a = route settlement system means that there is no meaningful backpressure on announcing = routes, pressure among peers to accept routes is very high in order to have = your own announcements accepted, and as a result the industry has generally = settled=20 on an acceptance threshold of routes set at the RIR minimum = allocation size. This is basically maintenance of the service provider/subscriber = hierarchy which=20 is in RFC1518 "An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR" = (Rekhter/Li) The fact that we've had governments discussing assignments down to = each=20 individual mobile user and IP address portability in the absence of = any actual consideration of routing implications is a fairly solid reason for = resisting any new allocation models (or at least holding off on such until the = industry can=20 mature to settlement for interprovider routing or until the IETF = comes up with=20 a level of magic sufficient to support single host address = portability...) Thanks! /John From johnl@taugh.com Sat Feb 8 14:50:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7AA21A062E for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 14:50:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.357 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5lHMsSCwN5la for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 14:50:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558611A062B for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 14:50:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 74015 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2014 22:50:05 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=1211e.52f6b49d.k1402; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=+sx8WXb2v3ZbVhEONpNhnCGeEN8eR/ClVhZpMwfPyu8=; b=LY3/YPv2WagTkKREAAL3lL2UYzPItXTak9018Dj4DbHOM+7o9K1jgvykuOETeGEdNhJkFTIzziHJTOVGSws+WrZsDTAHDiKg5AIMYWu9eVBUKm5n/ZLDaf9cXpnaZG7k35rJaQLKBkVmEJ3bGyF4iikd3r15z+G33E/id/8OotzM1IMQm8ZXhMgRB3s1Jb/8jOh/On8rYBJ3aO7CAq1/ZqzQ2Ei4P47PDLI61HPHpeuCL6roRvi1gQx2b4d6+dG6 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=1211e.52f6b49d.k1402; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=+sx8WXb2v3ZbVhEONpNhnCGeEN8eR/ClVhZpMwfPyu8=; b=qltm60hY0rxzckCUqjRnbJLNd/MLOyET+ojY0iT5DBle5ge5ThsPtCOUbsXu0/zHUg7rV/Y/udqUwd+/usJI6h/j6B/zHhVi7LBYGkyBlPPETgRZHypKW6n5Hhf9ZTCwU5jhL+/DdQ7qtZn0/kGMpWraxEwFMdsfGPPH/0VIliLxUFrZEdcB5ZjQr/jfqNx3V7MEIO8MxAxZuPp9ZsYsxeA/pEzRH9IerwEawKFbpGnFKeoHNAxvQo+I1yA/1jqn Received: from joyce.lan ([24.59.92.2]) by nimap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.76]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP; 08 Feb 2014 22:50:05 -0000 Date: 8 Feb 2014 17:50:04 -0500 Message-ID: From: "John R Levine" To: "John Curran" In-Reply-To: References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) Cleverness: None detected MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:50:09 -0000 > Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the present lack of a route settlement > system means that there is no meaningful backpressure on announcing routes, I did say "responsible" or something like that. I don't see any problem with multiple LIRs handing out chunks so long as they have aggregation policies similar to current RIRs. Lots of tiny allocations are bad no matter who makes them. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. From jcurran@istaff.org Sat Feb 8 15:40:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCBE1A0444 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 15:40:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rBX2WIEvVS9j for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 15:40:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9301A04F5 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 15:40:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-108-45-30-69.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([108.45.30.69] helo=[192.168.1.9]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WCHVU-000Gyb-NJ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 23:40:21 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 108.45.30.69 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+s2MyZgL60wgdKjPUj26kb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: John Curran In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:40:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7D100758-9DDC-4D6E-B8B9-FACCF7CD36FA@istaff.org> References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> To: John R Levine X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 23:40:23 -0000 On Feb 8, 2014, at 5:50 PM, John R Levine wrote: >> Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the present lack of a = route settlement >> system means that there is no meaningful backpressure on announcing = routes, >=20 > I did say "responsible" or something like that. I don't see any = problem with multiple LIRs handing out chunks so long as they have = aggregation policies similar to current RIRs. Lots of tiny allocations = are bad no matter who makes them. If every country becomes a registry authority (out of a specious belief = by=20 the IETF that would otherwise keep governments away from it), then it is=20= rather unlikely that it would be possible to meaningfully constrain how = these=20 countries decide to suballocate "their" space, regardless of the desires = of=20 the IETF or even the affected service providers in that region (and = those=20 affected globally in the case of the routing table.) Note - the RIRs are all membership organizations; if the service = providers actually want to towards country allocations, it would have already = happened. (and by the way, it would probably be a windfall for the RIR = organizations,=20 as the vast majority of 150+ countries would suddenly be looking, at = least initially, to outsource to them for IP request administration, Whois = services,=20 reverse-DNS/in-addr, and RPKI services... sort of repeat of ccTLD & = newTLD=20 model - we could even have big IP registry tradeshow events and parties = at=20 ICANN, etc. ;-) None of it would be to the actual benefit of the Internet, but it = certainly=20 would make for interesting times, particularly when the governments then = turn around mandate use of "their" address space as a revenue generation = mechanism,=20 implement country-based content control via "their" national address = blocks,=20 and similar misadventures that would encouraged as a result... /John Disclaimer: My views alone. The ARIN community has not expressed a view=20= on these matters other than consistent support for the = current=20 model and the goal to facilitate government participation in the current Internet registry system. From ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Sat Feb 8 16:31:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D65F1A0655 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 16:31:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.655 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qc9sneV76o1m for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 16:31:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (unknown [65.99.1.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474EC1A051B for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 16:31:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s190V6AQ081471 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:31:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-Id: <201402090031.s190V6AQ081471@nic-naa.net> From: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net To: internetgovtech@iab.org Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 19:31:06 -0500 Subject: [Internetgovtech] "internet governance" -- Mistaking jurisdiction for service X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:31:10 -0000 In this note I hope to show that "service" is a reasonable way to think about "governance", and it is distinct from "territorial jurisdiction". I also hope to show that "internet governance" is not necessarily equal to the largely sterile "ITU vs IETF" (or "circuit vs datagram") theater, nor a field completely occupied by existing actors. When I first went to Beijing and met with individuals from the two agencies which chartered CNNIC I became aware of several related issues: some claims advanced by the United States relative to the distribution of Microsoft and other instance-licensed digital products, and the hard currency settlement cost for overseas communications caused by a bug in the UTF8 code in the MS browser, generally generating three packet streams per domain name presented in Han Script, per browser instance -- one to Redmond, one to Sunnyvale, and one to Reston. The reason for the CNNIC nameserver constellation was simply to end a cost, then considerable, caused by a bug in a widely used browser product, then bundled into an operating system product, then argued in United States vs. Microsoft Corporation (253 F.3d 2345) as "tied" products. Interposition on incorrect resolution was latter extended to interposition on non-resolution (the Han Script TLDs), and with technical support from DPI vendors, mostly domiciled in the United States, extended to become known as "The Great Firewall". Availablity, and correct availability without the waste of trans-pacific queries, of identifiers in Han Script, was the end-user desired service, the goal of some rational effort towards "internet governance". It is incorrect to view the jurisdictional claims of a territorial polity citing this, or a similar service, as the basis for some effort towards "internet governance". Modulo the pre-existing national standards for the CJKV scripts, in particular the traditional and simplified Chinese scripts, and the choice of the monopoly operator with market power in the DNS market to use an alternate source of glyphs, the end-user service requirement was not confined to any "national market", existing among the Chinese language computer users of the South East Asia, North America, and Europe. A similar fact pattern arises when considering the needs of users of scripts which are presented right-to-left. When writing an invited response to the League of Arab States request for guidance on an RFP for a label-space with RtL presentation the issues of "variants" due to the earlier choice of the monopoly operator with market power in the DNS market to use an alternate source of glyphs was not limited to any subset of the League of Arab States, but was claimed by other "non-Arab" territorial jurisdictions, and by the Arabic and Farsi speaking populations of Europe and North America. My point here is that what can be meant by "internet governance" may be the real needs of users for identifiers associated with resources other than Arabic decimal digits and Latin characters. And, the act of providing "governance" creating this service, feature or attribute of the "internet" is not necessarily limited to agencies associated with territorial jurisdictions, though these are frequent actors, and also frequently attempt to exercise an exclusive agency, substituting "territorial jurisdiction" as a basis for a claimed right to form, or inform "governance, for end-user "necessity and utility". Eric From hallam@gmail.com Sat Feb 8 17:54:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412511A0672 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 17:54:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Juikw7tE9gS for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 17:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com (mail-la0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E2D1A02A1 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 17:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id y1so3711345lam.8 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 17:54:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rSlyNkajBBXxs3dm65lKOdv61fQWHVJEjCRpvx1X5IQ=; b=XNIStla+N0kHYmRqXOKH7s/tIXxZdOEeCuKMAe/kEkTU1MOKZ3CLT5VyEMkdUQYX8d mgoI+R2J82kBciukmURH39m7dfOcSQWkdyG6AX7BWUpGcOt4mlj8CP+2od70l3QrqP2d VlC3vdVNtRq1MiHuEjfSPBvNrvgNOi4eF9BuKSlOV6o2/VvCLbY6wHP5F04PhY1ZHP2K eTCOTe0P9AqcHPowUXIzCV047J6QPEpzNlQ51wHffJHGCtu3ylTXSw+6uiulDEwTjTEy FFohQoqGCteb0W0lVY17n4hU7MKb90oVfQrx1WyDMuGossHaSITT+fXZ1d5z5rdaCJDB jMXA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.1.168 with SMTP id 8mr22071lan.74.1391910890307; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 17:54:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 17:54:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 20:54:50 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: John Curran Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c6b4c2d056804f1ef82e2 Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cr=E9pin=2DLeblond?= , internetgovtech@iab.org, John Levine Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 01:54:53 -0000 --089e013c6b4c2d056804f1ef82e2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:57 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Feb 8, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > ... > > What irritated me about that issue is that a purely parochial issue, > preserving the interests of the RIRs was sandbagged by bogus technical > claims. > > Phillip - > > Interesting characterization; one that I would disagree with for > several reasons, > but I'll constrain myself to the technical ones on this list - > > Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the present lack of a route > settlement > system means that there is no meaningful backpressure on announcing > routes, > pressure among peers to accept routes is very high in order to have > your own > announcements accepted, and as a result the industry has generally > settled > on an acceptance threshold of routes set at the RIR minimum allocation > size. > This is basically maintenance of the service provider/subscriber > hierarchy which > is in RFC1518 "An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR" > (Rekhter/Li) > > The fact that we've had governments discussing assignments down to each > individual mobile user and IP address portability in the absence of any > actual > consideration of routing implications is a fairly solid reason for > resisting any > new allocation models (or at least holding off on such until the > industry can > mature to settlement for interprovider routing or until the IETF comes > up with > a level of magic sufficient to support single host address > portability...) > I proposed giving the governments the blocks, not that they be encouraged to put them into service. My model of Internet community / Government interaction is rather more Darwinian than yours, thats all. Arguing too strenuously against a proposal just convinces the other side that there is something going on. Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addresses is a legitimate and realistic concern. It is a concern that should be addressed seriously and honestly. Giving each country a /32 to use as a sovereign reserve of addresses should the need to use them arise seems to me to be a completely reasonable way to take the problem off the table. Do we have to pretend every one of these fights is the last stand at the Alamo? -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --089e013c6b4c2d056804f1ef82e2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:57 PM, John Curran <<= a href=3D"mailto:jcurran@istaff.org" target=3D"_blank">jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:
On Feb 8, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-B= aker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote= :
> ...
> What irritated me about that issue is that a purely pa= rochial issue, preserving the interests of the RIRs was sandbagged by bogus= technical claims.

Phillip -

=A0 =A0Interesting characterization; one that I would disagree with for sev= eral reasons,
=A0 =A0but I'll constrain myself to the technical ones on this list -
=A0 =A0Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the present lack of a rou= te settlement
=A0 =A0system means that there is no meaningful backpressure on announcing = routes,
=A0 =A0pressure among peers to accept routes is very high in order to have = your own
=A0 =A0announcements accepted, and as a result the industry has generally s= ettled
=A0 =A0on an acceptance threshold of routes set at the RIR minimum allocati= on size.
=A0 =A0This is basically maintenance of the service provider/subscriber hie= rarchy which
=A0 =A0is in RFC1518 "An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with C= IDR" (Rekhter/Li)

=A0 =A0The fact that we've had governments discussing assignments down = to each
=A0 =A0individual mobile user and IP address portability in the absence of = any actual
=A0 =A0consideration of routing implications is a fairly solid reason for r= esisting any
=A0 =A0new allocation models (or at least holding off on such until the ind= ustry can
=A0 =A0mature to settlement for interprovider routing or until the IETF com= es up with
=A0 =A0a level of magic sufficient to support single host address portabili= ty...)

I proposed giving the government= s the blocks, not that they be encouraged to put them into service.

My model of Internet community / Government interaction is r= ather more Darwinian than yours, thats all.=A0

Arg= uing too strenuously against a proposal just convinces the other side that = there is something going on. Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addresses is a= legitimate and realistic concern. It is a concern that should be addressed= seriously and honestly. Giving each country a /32 to use as a sovereign re= serve of addresses should the need to use them arise seems to me to be a co= mpletely reasonable way to take the problem off the table.

Do we have to pretend every one of these fights is the = last stand at the Alamo?=A0


-- =
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
--089e013c6b4c2d056804f1ef82e2-- From jcurran@istaff.org Sat Feb 8 18:09:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C650D1A066D for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:09:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sy9Inh3fvorC for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:09:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063761A064B for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:09:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-108-45-30-69.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([108.45.30.69] helo=[192.168.1.9]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WCJpK-000OZq-GE; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:08:58 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 108.45.30.69 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18C15kXTD/V8BYV+3ppli3g Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: John Curran In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:08:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <92068C82-5E75-411B-A09F-DFC036D05669@istaff.org> References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Phillip Hallam-Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cr=E9pin-Leblond?= , internetgovtech@iab.org, John Levine Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:09:04 -0000 On Feb 8, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker = wrote: > I proposed giving the governments the blocks, not that they be = encouraged to put them into service. >=20 > My model of Internet community / Government interaction is rather more = Darwinian than yours, thats all.=20 Do the service providers have any say in your proposal, or are they just = the test=20 subjects who get to evolve after the fact? > Arguing too strenuously against a proposal just convinces the other = side that there is something going on. Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 = addresses is a legitimate and realistic concern. You'd probably better elaborate on the above point about "threat of a US = blockcade" being a realistic concern, particularly in light of the address space = that is already issued to the RIRs. (i.e. I don't know of anything that IANA could do which = would prevent RIPE=20 or APNIC from issuing IPv6 space to any party they chose, including = governments.) Note also that today there are many countries that US has concerns about = and various=20 types of embargo/sanction activities; none of them over the year have = impacted availability=20 of IP address blocks to parties in those countries, which further = undermines your assertion=20 of a "realistic concern". > It is a concern that should be addressed seriously and honestly. = Giving each country a /32 to use as a sovereign reserve of addresses = should the need to use them arise seems to me to be a completely = reasonable way to take the problem off the table. Creating "sovereign reserves" almost assuredly results in them being = used by one=20 or more governments, with the implications (potentially nominal, = potentially serious)=20 being borne both by those in that country and providers globally with = respect to the routing implications. FYI, /John From drc@virtualized.org Sat Feb 8 18:26:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D86171A0674 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:26:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d_XxDKQL246c for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:26:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from alpha.virtualized.org (alpha.virtualized.org [199.233.229.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8281A0636 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:26:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C9D84CEE; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:26:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from alpha.virtualized.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (alpha.virtualized.org [127.0.0.1]) (maiad, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76573-02; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:26:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (c-67-169-100-133.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.100.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc@virtualized.org) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57D8E84CED; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:26:00 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FBB6AA49-CAB4-47B5-A680-3B25424CB656"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:25:55 -0800 Message-Id: References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Phillip Hallam-Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:26:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_FBB6AA49-CAB4-47B5-A680-3B25424CB656 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Feb 8, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker = wrote: > I proposed giving the governments the blocks, not that they be = encouraged to put them into service. How would you dissuade them? > Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addresses is a legitimate and = realistic concern. How would that work exactly? Regards, -drc --Apple-Mail=_FBB6AA49-CAB4-47B5-A680-3B25424CB656 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS9uczAAoJENV6ebf0/4rXJZ4IAJpFBrvXekpdM8TO/DDCbITc JwoeiGi/e0zY1Fksk46isfEx0gIwHB4MxQ8J0ym6Xq5/xClrpLXdEQPSlxJ1m0cU 3M7IbFWj0ZFERSnvDwOYA8hrw2xL7eNEDxCu3isdd/VZdHoerIs8XZscjPfCbzft c5sERFjNxjzlbb72VRGJO7QmeashM+bSKot+WbXW9KHwLRIGRrrX4Q66NJj0PcmN GRJUoOm5+7F30jJ0Cy/+gHbAd/6gGqvS+5xFQrWuFAPaOI5GmI6Rhm6OZnJyU4hm bTrlfjzbBuIUVO1rKhn/nN6rU8P7sISyA3komEmJp2IeXFPLy/hsDp8siAMhi5Y= =jTTJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_FBB6AA49-CAB4-47B5-A680-3B25424CB656-- From hallam@gmail.com Sat Feb 8 18:44:34 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBDD1A0672 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:44:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZFe_Bz44xoYd for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:44:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x22f.google.com (mail-la0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC031A059D for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:44:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id hr17so3764945lab.6 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 18:44:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4jhxEFm7iM8BEoEDRpInK+Yn9DmJlbZohiylaqAuaGU=; b=rri40y03q/mhFt/SvwtU5+VP+To7PjosZSwvMB9MYjylbPRuKpGB3ZnduBkRoFnL/j 46sPhdNJ9rjOHUWhvx0n2PFjljGxYtFYeJ+sRwqc9ixV7Zx6A+w5JnHbpuchBPZio4mf KZlUXvyjv+ANNu/sh+Mn9N3ya1H1AjG1EYvUMX+V0zEMZ09tFHwI3TyjzaGgtosrIMk2 QFuXIBGLRue9uFSg3IPUK7LPxyZaBLxjrYqDrrkhySfSdIVV4kSmSNw5av2XqST0IYVs fs6bLOnAA2X06+8C0kYw1p233MqIg6o+Z5qWy5kW7SXdnVaZEMDhmifNtyhxqItWjDur w8EA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.170.232 with SMTP id ap8mr230607lac.40.1391913870717; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 18:44:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:44:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <92068C82-5E75-411B-A09F-DFC036D05669@istaff.org> References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <92068C82-5E75-411B-A09F-DFC036D05669@istaff.org> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:44:30 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: John Curran Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01177691d27bbb04f1f033d2 Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cr=E9pin=2DLeblond?= , internetgovtech@iab.org, John Levine Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:44:35 -0000 --089e01177691d27bbb04f1f033d2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:08 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Feb 8, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > I proposed giving the governments the blocks, not that they be > encouraged to put them into service. > > > > My model of Internet community / Government interaction is rather more > Darwinian than yours, thats all. > > Do the service providers have any say in your proposal, or are they just > the test > subjects who get to evolve after the fact? They are already test subjects. Let us imagine China sends ICANN a letter saying that they have decided to take the IPv6 prefix XYZ/24 and that it is inadvisable to issue those addresses to the RIRs as they will conflict with addresses allocated in China. Would anyone in their right mind who knew about this accept an allocation from within the block? I can't see that happening. If you are a service provider and the blocks are appropriately curated, why would you refuse to route them? Neither ICANN nor ARIN puts money in my pocket so I have no dog in any fight with the Chinese. I am going to listen to my customers and only my customers and they don't care about ICANN or ARIN either. All they care about is that they can connect to the whole net and get their packets to route. If an allocator screws up for whatever reason, they might not be able to get blocks routed because they are too small. But more likely the penalty that would emerge is that people would declare shadow routes and aggregate the granular blocks into lumps that can then be dumped onto some national level exchange to cope with. > > Arguing too strenuously against a proposal just convinces the other side > that there is something going on. Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addresses > is a legitimate and realistic concern. > > You'd probably better elaborate on the above point about "threat of a US > blockcade" > being a realistic concern, particularly in light of the address space that > is already issued > to the RIRs. ICANN is a US corporation. It is therefore under US law. The US Congress just shut down the government for several days at a cost of tens of billions of dollars as the opposition party tried to force the President to repeal the healthcare plan that he was elected on and re-elected on. The treasury is currently having to spend about $25 billion to take 'extraordinary measures' because the House is making a futile grandstanding gesture to their supporters. Further, the US has just spent $4 trillion and half a million lives on the invasion of Iraq which happened for no other reason than the then President couldn't resist using what he imagined to be an undefeatable military capability. And on the diplomatic front, the US imposed every sanction it could imagine on Iran back in 1979. In response to the alleged Iranian nuclear program the Obama administration succeeded in persuading its allies to impose sanctions on Iran as a means of forcing Iran to the negotiating table on the issue the nuclear program. Then when it appeared that the negotiations might be in danger of succeeding a group of Senators (many from the President's own party) attempted to sabotage the talks by passing a bill that would require even stiffer sanctions and require the US to support Israel should it start a war with Iran. I don't know what the supporters of the bill expected to achieve but if it had passed into law the US allies would have dropped their sanctions immediately. So the lesson I draw is that if the power exists, some idiot is likely to try to use it, no matter how idiotic that might be. Of course it would be rather hard for ICANN to pull back blocks allocated to the RIRs or condition issue of new blocks on compliance with some US 'blockade' requirement. If you wargame the scenarios, the most likely outcome is that ICANN collapses and the DNS registries and RIRs found a replacement. > Note also that today there are many countries that US has concerns about > and various > types of embargo/sanction activities; none of them over the year have > impacted availability > of IP address blocks to parties in those countries, which further > undermines your assertion > of a "realistic concern". You are not thinking like a diplomat. They consider potential threats that might arise over centuries. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --089e01177691d27bbb04f1f033d2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:08 PM, John Curran <<= a href=3D"mailto:jcurran@istaff.org" target=3D"_blank">jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:
On Feb 8, 2014, at 8:54 PM, = Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.c= om> wrote:
> I proposed giving the governments the blocks, not that they be encoura= ged to put them into service.
>
> My model of Internet community / Government interaction is rather more= Darwinian than yours, thats all.

Do the service providers have any say in your proposal, or are they j= ust the test
subjects who get to evolve after the fact?

= They are already test subjects. Let us imagine China sends ICANN a letter s= aying that they have decided to take the IPv6 prefix XYZ/24 and that it is = inadvisable to issue those addresses to the RIRs as they will conflict with= addresses allocated in China.

Would anyone in their right mind who knew about this ac= cept an allocation from within the block? I can't see that happening.= =A0

If you are a service provider and the blocks a= re appropriately curated, why would you refuse to route them? Neither ICANN= nor ARIN puts money in my pocket so I have no dog in any fight with the Ch= inese. I am going to listen to my customers and only my customers and they = don't care about ICANN or ARIN either. All they care about is that they= can connect to the whole net and get their packets to route.


If an allocator screws up for whatever r= eason, they might not be able to get blocks routed because they are too sma= ll. But more likely the penalty that would emerge is that people would decl= are shadow routes and aggregate the granular blocks into lumps that can the= n be dumped onto some national level exchange to cope with.



=A0
> Arguing too strenuously against a proposal just convinces the other si= de that there is something going on. Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addres= ses is a legitimate and realistic concern.

You'd probably better elaborate on the above point about "th= reat of a US blockcade"
being a realistic concern, particularly in light of the address space that = is already issued
to the RIRs.

ICANN is a US corporation. It= is therefore under US law. The US Congress just shut down the government f= or several days at a cost of tens of billions of dollars as the opposition = party tried to force the President to repeal the healthcare plan that he wa= s elected on and re-elected on. The treasury is currently having to spend a= bout $25 billion to take 'extraordinary measures' because the House= is making a futile grandstanding gesture to their supporters.

Further, the US has just spent $4 trillion and half a m= illion lives on the invasion of Iraq which happened for no other reason tha= n the then President couldn't resist using what he imagined to be an un= defeatable military capability.

And on the diplomatic front, the US imposed every sanct= ion it could imagine on Iran back in 1979. In response to the alleged Irani= an nuclear program the Obama administration succeeded in persuading its all= ies to impose sanctions on Iran as a means of forcing Iran to the negotiati= ng table on the issue the nuclear program. Then when it appeared that the n= egotiations might be in danger of succeeding a group of Senators (many from= the President's own party) attempted to sabotage the talks by passing = a bill that would require even stiffer sanctions and require the US to supp= ort Israel should it start a war with Iran.=A0

I don't know what the supporters of the bill expect= ed to achieve but if it had passed into law the US allies would have droppe= d their sanctions immediately.

So the lesson I dra= w is that if the power exists, some idiot is likely to try to use it, no ma= tter how idiotic that might be.


Of course it would be rather hard for IC= ANN to pull back blocks allocated to the RIRs or condition issue of new blo= cks on compliance with some US 'blockade' requirement.

If you wargame the scenarios, the most likely outcome is tha= t ICANN collapses and the DNS registries and RIRs found a replacement.


Note also that today there are many countries that US has concerns about an= d various
types of embargo/sanction activities; none of them over the year have impac= ted availability
of IP address blocks to parties in those countries, which further undermine= s your assertion
of a "realistic concern".

You are= not thinking like a diplomat. They consider potential threats that might a= rise over centuries.


=A0

--
Website: http://h= allambaker.com/
--089e01177691d27bbb04f1f033d2-- From hallam@gmail.com Sat Feb 8 18:58:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACFA61A0678 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:58:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wqB2ws7Cgwry for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:58:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x235.google.com (mail-lb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8071A0673 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:58:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id z11so2877459lbi.12 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 18:58:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2GObru0FVYI2L+Cw9ncQv7dEPJQpoOloNPHr3CZoRdo=; b=BSHIFLr1ZNW/dxbTAeu23DH+Ny8vpl6rXTz2PWrj5VK2+yoCfl5zMPrC7kbBXkgs7i xiD0G0fq/6GTOPWpr6Q6nTO5jWU279Hobqi2jHo/XiGMpzv0kIZ49vvpNH6oli1NZorw J3zz0XW74SdHzIBecKlrgv1yPxxoR5NwltiJQTjnmMte7xC5ukVTVUJeaXmD93xvEtOC kZXfxlZwOTuSTWjiX3ivQO3V/DiM9qSpJ0rnaGfbKZgpeKAbS867rf6x3mlJfoQYfmhT YM64Bhzp+qHX0fiZAAuPswjFjeTSaTM8g/djYlsuC4XpOgIGEkrqKlpV1T8wO2hrwNWi wIdA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.180.72 with SMTP id dm8mr15460540lbc.28.1391914700004; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 18:58:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 18:58:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:58:19 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: David Conrad Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011836be40627404f1f06546 Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:58:23 -0000 --089e011836be40627404f1f06546 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:25 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Feb 8, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > I proposed giving the governments the blocks, not that they be > encouraged to put them into service. > > How would you dissuade them? For the address blocks to be any use, deployment of IPv6 would have to be achieved. The blocks I suggest are large enough to provide a sovereign reserve but not so large that they could be used without considerable consideration and planning. My expectation is that most countries would subcontract management of their blocks to a specialist just like most of them subcontract management of their CC TLDs. > > Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addresses is a legitimate and realistic > concern. > > How would that work exactly? > Pinhead in Congress realizes that he might get the Cubano vote in Florida if he suggests kicking Cuba off the Internet. Attaches amendment to some must pass bill that causes the head of ICANN or the RIRs to go to jail if they give addresses to Cuba. Congress votes for it because they don't want their scorecard to be dinged. The way Senseless-brainless forced REAL-ID through despite the fact that the administration and the states said it was stupid. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --089e011836be40627404f1f06546 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:25 PM, David Conrad <= drc@virtualized.or= g> wrote:
On Feb 8, 2014, at 5:54 PM, = Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.c= om> wrote:
> I proposed giving the governments the blocks, not that they be encoura= ged to put them into service.

How would you dissuade them?

For the = address blocks to be any use, deployment of IPv6 would have to be achieved.= The blocks I suggest are large enough to provide a sovereign reserve but n= ot so large that they could be used without considerable consideration and = planning.

My expectation is that most countries would subcontract= management of their blocks to a specialist just like most of them subcontr= act management of their CC TLDs.

=A0
> Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addresses is a legitimate and realisti= c concern.

How would that work exactly?

Pinh= ead in Congress realizes that he might get the Cubano vote in Florida if he= suggests kicking Cuba off the Internet. Attaches amendment to some must pa= ss bill that causes the head of ICANN or the RIRs to go to jail if they giv= e addresses to Cuba. Congress votes for it because they don't want thei= r scorecard to be dinged.

The way Senseless-brainless forced REAL-ID through desp= ite the fact that the administration and the states said it was stupid. =A0=

--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
--089e011836be40627404f1f06546-- From drc@virtualized.org Sat Feb 8 19:18:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17841A067E for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:18:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jg0133aW7ZLw for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:18:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from alpha.virtualized.org (alpha.virtualized.org [199.233.229.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7651A0679 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:18:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6731684CEE; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:18:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from alpha.virtualized.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (alpha.virtualized.org [127.0.0.1]) (maiad, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76542-06; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:18:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (c-67-169-100-133.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.100.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc@virtualized.org) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1340284CED; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:18:09 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A3D883E6-20AA-4223-B6BF-6C266A276A93"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:18:06 -0800 Message-Id: <16EC5A9A-D073-4D7C-A85B-4D9E85918065@virtualized.org> References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> To: Phillip Hallam-Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:18:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A3D883E6-20AA-4223-B6BF-6C266A276A93 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_94026479-1A21-4296-A27D-C5F4FA7CC495" --Apple-Mail=_94026479-1A21-4296-A27D-C5F4FA7CC495 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Phillip, On Feb 8, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker = wrote: > > I proposed giving the governments the blocks, not that they be = encouraged to put them into service. >=20 > How would you dissuade them? >=20 > For the address blocks to be any use, deployment of IPv6 would have to = be achieved. The blocks I suggest are large enough to provide a = sovereign reserve but not so large that they could be used without = considerable consideration and planning. And governments are well known for considerable consideration and = planning? > My expectation is that most countries would subcontract management of = their blocks to a specialist just like most of them subcontract = management of their CC TLDs. In other words, they'd put the addresses into service albeit through a = third party? > > Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addresses is a legitimate and = realistic concern. >=20 > How would that work exactly? >=20 > Pinhead in Congress realizes that he might get the Cubano vote in = Florida if he suggests kicking Cuba off the Internet. Attaches amendment = to some must pass bill that causes the head of ICANN or the RIRs to go = to jail if they give addresses to Cuba. Congress votes for it because = they don't want their scorecard to be dinged. And how exactly would that stop LACNIC from allocating addresses from = their /12 to entities in Cuba (hint: ISPs in Cuba already gets their = address space from LACNIC)? Regards, -drc --Apple-Mail=_94026479-1A21-4296-A27D-C5F4FA7CC495 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Phillip,

On Feb 8, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
> I proposed giving the governments the blocks, not that they be encouraged to put them into service.

How would you dissuade them?

For the address blocks to be any use, deployment of IPv6 would have to be achieved. The blocks I suggest are large enough to provide a sovereign reserve but not so large that they could be used without considerable consideration and planning.

And governments are well known for considerable consideration and planning?

My expectation is that most countries would subcontract management of their blocks to a specialist just like most of them subcontract management of their CC TLDs.

In other words, they'd put the addresses into service albeit through a third party?

> Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addresses is a legitimate and realistic concern.

How would that work exactly?

Pinhead in Congress realizes that he might get the Cubano vote in Florida if he suggests kicking Cuba off the Internet. Attaches amendment to some must pass bill that causes the head of ICANN or the RIRs to go to jail if they give addresses to Cuba. Congress votes for it because they don't want their scorecard to be dinged.

And how exactly would that stop LACNIC from allocating addresses from their /12 to entities in Cuba (hint: ISPs in Cuba already gets their address space from LACNIC)?

Regards,
-drc

--Apple-Mail=_94026479-1A21-4296-A27D-C5F4FA7CC495-- --Apple-Mail=_A3D883E6-20AA-4223-B6BF-6C266A276A93 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS9vNuAAoJENV6ebf0/4rXSF0IAIWNNaI7Bs0WShKADJf4bwv8 6gIG243lj1eeRbBmZNa4om+hB8rAMjeiWfEH08EFYldStGs3Dy3DfY8w43dRAvsv 9jp2NQC+Q6x8t/gCOmytH3ilLgyxoH4CwsR/qt81pBd1Mu0JM978WvN85kFg221C kdjnpb9dYYjJXTxRBnzGkBtq201L2TzYOi9N/OU7mVY/v6aWlpNLzfyWm5tCb48W MDt6jiTiBRSlYpUBOmoYQPfAVxKHiBx/Zel4kDf8zeOaOgaCeeS47wvvd8s/Gc16 N5j/QMVfeqsJZH/BI6qxpdcFSLg+Ed0bx2i0HcFu3zFH/+fHy7jKQi6qsn8vWr4= =ZIu+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_A3D883E6-20AA-4223-B6BF-6C266A276A93-- From ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Sat Feb 8 19:21:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2971A0680 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:21:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.655 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dw4Fh8hf-B0q for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (unknown [65.99.1.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BC11A067F for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic-naa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic-naa.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s193LYtp085203 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:21:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net) Message-Id: <201402090321.s193LYtp085203@nic-naa.net> From: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net To: internetgovtech@iab.org Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 22:21:34 -0500 Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:21:36 -0000 The hypothetical Phillip just offered -- "Pinhead attaches amendment that causes ... to go to jail" has already occured. I was asked by an aquaintance from Tehran if I could provide support for one or more applications for new gTLDs. I asked the USG if assisting an applicant from Iran in completing an application required a licence and was advised that anything other than selling a domain name to a registrant in Iran was non-exempt. So I wrote up a license request. After more than a year delay I got a "no" response. To check the process I applied again, and in just over a month got another "no" response. So while ICANN may be able to contract with an applicant domiciled in Iran, (as an entity exercising delegated rule making authority from the DoC), a non-governmental entity domiciled in the US risks liability when providing mere application editorial support to an applicant domiciled in the Islamic Republic. Eric From hallam@gmail.com Sat Feb 8 19:41:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702C21A0681 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:41:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qf7OjUi-vqCY for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983F11A067D for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 19:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id m20so8483733qcx.37 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 19:41:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=q8TnXDfMFt5pNgigZ90H+PrBzhoNJgl6/LigesBb3oc=; b=bIbpJm15Iwgp0kVuExRA+aBzOQbqXXlWphaX786xPgAODwv4Jy5yhbA8+lwXu/LDLO Vs0XU8s+xf83wNkCduKbILTZFvh2GpkzBpCyH0tualCGMmUrnt71YNSSl2i6IDrFMdiJ 8XOzL6LBhsRQc/rk+polvyiZuuu2uRd6sIl50C3qWE+ENNtJMzYQEwkIRXwLWlEmXrh8 LkSkYknj3sR5GMEideborScuCM0C+rq4dHF6JLw4L12yG4HCWA6kPAqf6NQ7V+etkvra nNRAXBxTh2Nxj0qzO/BZ8QbVT0q0WiO9JWEWq88CKdlu7vsTvpyz7Ctpm/t6/MMLMyqW hDiw== X-Received: by 10.140.81.74 with SMTP id e68mr33641782qgd.99.1391917274827; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 19:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from new-york.home (pool-72-74-158-98.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [72.74.158.98]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm10531524qat.6.2014.02.08.19.41.11 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Feb 2014 19:41:11 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7B305B4E-9D8F-4870-8B10-D824866A6B00"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Phill In-Reply-To: <16EC5A9A-D073-4D7C-A85B-4D9E85918065@virtualized.org> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:41:08 -0500 Message-Id: <9EC79934-726E-4E9C-B9C6-DF86123B23D3@gmail.com> References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <16EC5A9A-D073-4D7C-A85B-4D9E85918065@virtualized.org> To: David Conrad X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:41:17 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7B305B4E-9D8F-4870-8B10-D824866A6B00 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8FC9B8D1-8EC9-4A25-95A9-CB9FF7268048" --Apple-Mail=_8FC9B8D1-8EC9-4A25-95A9-CB9FF7268048 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Feb 8, 2014, at 10:18 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Phillip, >=20 > On Feb 8, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker = wrote: >> > I proposed giving the governments the blocks, not that they be = encouraged to put them into service. >>=20 >> How would you dissuade them? >>=20 >> For the address blocks to be any use, deployment of IPv6 would have = to be achieved. The blocks I suggest are large enough to provide a = sovereign reserve but not so large that they could be used without = considerable consideration and planning. >=20 > And governments are well known for considerable consideration and = planning? Absolutely, to the point of paralysis. >> My expectation is that most countries would subcontract management of = their blocks to a specialist just like most of them subcontract = management of their CC TLDs. >=20 > In other words, they'd put the addresses into service albeit through a = third party? >=20 >> > Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addresses is a legitimate and = realistic concern. >>=20 >> How would that work exactly? >>=20 >> Pinhead in Congress realizes that he might get the Cubano vote in = Florida if he suggests kicking Cuba off the Internet. Attaches amendment = to some must pass bill that causes the head of ICANN or the RIRs to go = to jail if they give addresses to Cuba. Congress votes for it because = they don't want their scorecard to be dinged. >=20 > And how exactly would that stop LACNIC from allocating addresses from = their /12 to entities in Cuba (hint: ISPs in Cuba already gets their = address space from LACNIC)? Unless the rPKI is deployed, with difficulty. But the rPKI is one ring to bind them. --Apple-Mail=_8FC9B8D1-8EC9-4A25-95A9-CB9FF7268048 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
On Feb 8, 2014, at 10:18 PM, David = Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> = wrote:

Phillip,

On Feb 8, 2014, at 6:58 = PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> = wrote:
> I proposed giving the governments the = blocks, not that they be encouraged to put them into service.

How would you dissuade them?

For = the address blocks to be any use, deployment of IPv6 would have to be = achieved. The blocks I suggest are large enough to provide a sovereign = reserve but not so large that they could be used without considerable = consideration and = planning.

And = governments are well known for considerable consideration and = planning?

Absolutely, = to the point of = paralysis.



My expectation is that most countries would subcontract management = of their blocks to a specialist just like most of them subcontract = management of their CC = TLDs.

In other words, = they'd put the addresses into service albeit through a third = party?

> Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addresses is = a legitimate and realistic concern.

How would that work = exactly?

Pinhead in Congress = realizes that he might get the Cubano vote in Florida if he suggests = kicking Cuba off the Internet. Attaches amendment to some must pass bill = that causes the head of ICANN or the RIRs to go to jail if they give = addresses to Cuba. Congress votes for it because they don't want their = scorecard to be = dinged.

And how = exactly would that stop LACNIC from allocating addresses from their /12 = to entities in Cuba (hint: ISPs in Cuba already gets their address space = from LACNIC)?

Unless = the rPKI is deployed, with difficulty.

But the = rPKI is one ring to bind them.

= --Apple-Mail=_8FC9B8D1-8EC9-4A25-95A9-CB9FF7268048-- --Apple-Mail=_7B305B4E-9D8F-4870-8B10-D824866A6B00 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS9vjVAAoJEFgnmbi98JDF64MH/0pNVbBxSZ6DY3mmVdOAncSn KD3D/2rue6Vvv4k5y3Z3/xrjgqic6HWz9m+xbHkqSHow4UE/xf77/MtcHlw/DC5/ wn2bd0uTWvmYtQnz0C3jheJcaaO1LIDqSZTppWyQ0aVkHNPJWn3SLzRIIRDuU7Sa iKqJXpfFn33mqfKq0MbKxoWgjLSSl1RHMcMCX04SM8XhA3Pw9F2PmfsTns9k19nR PoyXtYqMFTgsELblrg7C+dCBrmEKMJLgM5KO9YiEaQeUeFLCdgfd2nTzFUUYsdY3 WrthAjsD3xfSqwNwEkdmutbl0WHy+egXcXMqCkmSfMcA8yNpbGfmnuw0BvcZP+0= =R0Hm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_7B305B4E-9D8F-4870-8B10-D824866A6B00-- From drc@virtualized.org Sat Feb 8 22:36:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424691A0599 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:36:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2pXs26XdTLcr for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from alpha.virtualized.org (alpha.virtualized.org [199.233.229.186]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A091A0592 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:36:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83CE084CEE; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 01:36:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from alpha.virtualized.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (alpha.virtualized.org [127.0.0.1]) (maiad, port 10024) with ESMTP id 79178-01; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 01:36:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (c-67-169-100-133.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.100.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc@virtualized.org) by alpha.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD67684CED; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 01:36:29 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_716F0FDA-6350-4AD1-8680-A31C5AE1B62B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: <9EC79934-726E-4E9C-B9C6-DF86123B23D3@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:36:27 -0800 Message-Id: <3095F870-227B-435C-AF65-36785DAEB4E8@virtualized.org> References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <16EC5A9A-D073-4D7C-A85B-4D9E85918065@virtualized.org> <9EC79934-726E-4E9C-B9C6-DF86123B23D3@gmail.com> To: Phill X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 06:36:37 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_716F0FDA-6350-4AD1-8680-A31C5AE1B62B Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_15AFF045-D6BB-4479-90A8-E4E06651975C" --Apple-Mail=_15AFF045-D6BB-4479-90A8-E4E06651975C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Feb 8, 2014, at 7:41 PM, Phill wrote: >> On Feb 8, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker = wrote: >>> > I proposed giving the governments the blocks, not that they be = encouraged to put them into service. >>>=20 >>> How would you dissuade them? >>>=20 >>> For the address blocks to be any use, deployment of IPv6 would have = to be achieved. The blocks I suggest are large enough to provide a = sovereign reserve but not so large that they could be used without = considerable consideration and planning. >>=20 >> And governments are well known for considerable consideration and = planning? >=20 > Absolutely, to the point of paralysis. So, you believe that governments should be allocated blocks of IPv6 = addresses and that after receiving those blocks, they'll not use them = because they are paralyzed by consideration and planning? I'll admit a bit of skepticism, particularly since the ITU and a number = of countries have been proposing "Country Internet Registries" for = something like a decade. I suspect it more likely that soon after = receiving "their" prefixes, the receiving governments will mandate the = use of "their" prefixes for ISPs operating in their counties. After all, = why not? >>> > Threat of a US blockade of IPv6 addresses is a legitimate and = realistic concern. >>>=20 >>> How would that work exactly? >>>=20 >>> Pinhead in Congress realizes that he might get the Cubano vote in = Florida if he suggests kicking Cuba off the Internet. Attaches amendment = to some must pass bill that causes the head of ICANN or the RIRs to go = to jail if they give addresses to Cuba. Congress votes for it because = they don't want their scorecard to be dinged. >>=20 >> And how exactly would that stop LACNIC from allocating addresses from = their /12 to entities in Cuba (hint: ISPs in Cuba already gets their = address space from LACNIC)? >=20 > Unless the rPKI is deployed, with difficulty. So the threat of a "US blockade of IPv6 addresses is a legitimate and = realistic concern" if the RPKI is deployed. Given RPKI isn't deployed, = I'm not sure how you can use the present tense, but no matter. Let's = assume a miracle happens and RPKI is deployed. To make things simpler, = we can even assume five more miracles occur and IANA is the root of the = RPKI and will remain so in the scenario you propose. You believe the = "pinheads in Congress" will fashion a law (presumably after getting over = their paralysis resulting from their considerable consideration and = planning -- or is the US Congress exempt from that?) that instructs = IANA, as root of the RPKI, to invalidate prefixes allocated by LACNIC in = Montevideo to Cuba? If so, why do you believe ISPs around the world who will be configuring = their routers based on advisory information derived out of the RPKI will = go along with US Congress? Regards, -drc --Apple-Mail=_15AFF045-D6BB-4479-90A8-E4E06651975C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 On Feb = 8, 2014, at 7:41 PM, Phill <hallam@gmail.com> = wrote:
On Feb 8, 2014, = at 6:58 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> = wrote:
> I proposed giving the governments the = blocks, not that they be encouraged to put them into service.

How would you dissuade them?

For = the address blocks to be any use, deployment of IPv6 would have to be = achieved. The blocks I suggest are large enough to provide a sovereign = reserve but not so large that they could be used without considerable = consideration and = planning.

And = governments are well known for considerable consideration and = planning?

Absolutely, = to the point of = paralysis.

So, you believe = that governments should be allocated blocks of IPv6 addresses and that = after receiving those blocks, they'll not use them because they are = paralyzed by consideration and planning?

I'll = admit a bit of skepticism, particularly since the ITU and a number of = countries have been proposing "Country Internet Registries" for = something like a decade. I suspect it more likely that soon after = receiving "their" prefixes, the receiving governments will mandate the = use of "their" prefixes for ISPs operating in their counties. After all, = why not?

> Threat of a US blockade of = IPv6 addresses is a legitimate and realistic concern.

How would that work = exactly?

Pinhead in Congress = realizes that he might get the Cubano vote in Florida if he suggests = kicking Cuba off the Internet. Attaches amendment to some must pass bill = that causes the head of ICANN or the RIRs to go to jail if they give = addresses to Cuba. Congress votes for it because they don't want their = scorecard to be = dinged.

And how = exactly would that stop LACNIC from allocating addresses from their /12 = to entities in Cuba (hint: ISPs in Cuba already gets their address space = from LACNIC)?

Unless the = rPKI is deployed, with = difficulty.

So the threat of a = "US blockade of IPv6 addresses is a legitimate and realistic concern" if = the RPKI is deployed. Given RPKI isn't deployed, I'm not sure how you = can use the present tense, but no matter. Let's assume a miracle happens = and RPKI is deployed.  To make things simpler, we can even assume = five more miracles occur and IANA is the root of the RPKI and will = remain so in the scenario you propose. You believe the "pinheads in = Congress" will fashion a law (presumably after getting over their = paralysis resulting from their considerable consideration and planning = -- or is the US Congress exempt from that?) that instructs IANA, as root = of the RPKI, to invalidate prefixes allocated by LACNIC in Montevideo to = Cuba?

If so, why do you believe ISPs around the = world who will be configuring their routers based on advisory = information derived out of the RPKI will go along with US = Congress?

Regards,
-drc

<= /div>= --Apple-Mail=_15AFF045-D6BB-4479-90A8-E4E06651975C-- --Apple-Mail=_716F0FDA-6350-4AD1-8680-A31C5AE1B62B Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS9yHrAAoJENV6ebf0/4rXqfIH/iVG8/Jl6JIB66ng1/HYmFDn JQpr3ZS7VguM2Vp66j4mYdOGKjw+ijpUktfLaF3KsHTocxGWpJCnSrJcwTuRv3fU 0d831B5PPdWG5y9ANpxauIvrydrlE9JdMDoyuO0rSFXOBLn56QQza2IBQHunFzBt SYn9/OjgZSMokyh+XfwFGO7NExKob93tTtrJAhYU4aPyVExW+fLTTMlEs171fxfK w9lTiXaaksmoYc0ruAvTaM8PmCcNkrEb0bX2ZMAw8bM7gOizNKbOz69t7zWdUmM1 G0aeqcHxm0SBZG8UlDDw12PYU+jDOnsD2AbuKAKg+efieYrYQJ+DMI1rtj0ij58= =TMis -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_716F0FDA-6350-4AD1-8680-A31C5AE1B62B-- From ocl@gih.com Sun Feb 9 01:19:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914881A06B8 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 01:19:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KgB0Xqv41eQF for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 01:19:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (salsa.gih.co.uk [IPv6:2a00:19e8:10:5::b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9996D1A06B6 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 01:19:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from waikiki.gih.co.uk (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1]) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 442CE18F3AD; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:19:47 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mahalo1; bh=eukajKnzB 6HFyQLK7tB7dCoIWNo=; b=QqlON8SLEZzag6aqRAIGiE6BmU7mmYnTAG5BHWv8n 2V/8ip3Iss8N9FjlJ5qZSSBfHyAoOa6+P+B2TbR71kg7FXR3rhPTW7sn3MZONcDw wYcMTF4CL7kLenzRS/qXuB+BHl+C8oQYrSq9OLYryuaa/XcqdiDEvIU1to7vyvB9 nc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gih.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mahalo1; b=kiL oVeZfKpN/0wfSlxFXpEkn0J80Idxw0AxDmIHZfvTjzc4qqYZqHm/HJpTfFW3ON6m LcLBi3cL+LXWz9U17HeFwMwHA27gA8FKIixAEPIPpdVhHby9EwQ8LTqaNBYdHKN8 J2+k/V4fm3wD4aIxaaLEQMCxU+Rvw/rhXndqQhkc= Received: from [192.168.1.45] (ANice-651-1-418-112.w83-201.abo.wanadoo.fr [83.201.26.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by waikiki.gih.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CC1918F3AB; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:19:46 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <52F74830.8000806@gih.com> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 10:19:44 +0100 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Levine , internetgovtech@iab.org References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 09:19:50 -0000 On 08/02/2014 18:31, John Levine wrote: > PS: Olivier is too modest to tell you that he is the head of the ICANN > ALAC, which has arranged for each of its consistutent organizations > (ALS) to send a representative on an all-expense paid junket to London > for the June ICANN meeting. Disappointing choice of words, John - and I do not know how this fits in the discussion we're having here. If you have a problem with this, please take it off list. Kind regards, Olivier From sm@elandsys.com Sun Feb 9 03:09:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4081F1A0281 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:09:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oe38pLluMDHF for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9CE1A00AB for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:09:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.137.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s19B8ovx018697 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:09:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1391944143; bh=PGxL69oygHZ5HymbG00dn5xWik2pRYF+28ePMQwa+Js=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=22xLz5yLitmteWxOYm3iU10nUmnOSwYQbGfestPUiRu8yogqKJXFnrcMuspYQL2mJ TTTPxlbx+xMh8pVJH5jn0PQSzJkbVUu2FA7rf6bj3B1a45fE/jsZ3sdwjDugg7OXqb 1lCoYL2vHJxqJn2Wp7nirL302/JnhubHu34f127g= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1391944143; i=@elandsys.com; bh=PGxL69oygHZ5HymbG00dn5xWik2pRYF+28ePMQwa+Js=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=c7L7SZfNRaWIk+xaSgmqA5rIp+x4+Ub8vOIFmhgUcbNdgo81ISbFtwkaJEm6ZCvgt moU/NNaIN4q/0X7ksC1TkXGyz7GBDHLyCVUKJOmdn8hcCBoGYUaZlrGPpnIAabhJpb i4RZGinrqVh+nz7oflgrOv+XvEpSYNrs3ZozzC1M= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140209013330.0bc03770@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:01:43 -0800 To: Eliot Lear From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <52F67FDB.9080004@cisco.com> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> <52F51F18.4040809@gih.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140207151912.0bfaf738@resistor.net> <52F67FDB.9080004@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond , internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:09:21 -0000 Hi Eliot, At 11:04 08-02-2014, Eliot Lear wrote: >Well indeed one reason we should have our leadership in the room is so >that the Internet doesn't become an accidental victim of some regulatory >action that has unintended consequences. I think it's great, by the >way, that you're talking to people about the IETF. It's good for them >to know what we do, and that they too can both participate and lead, as >you have done. The IETF of today is different from the one there was 20 years ago. There were bad decisions then; there were also a few good decisions. Nowadays there are indecisions as people prefer to look good instead of taking the blame. The arguments made by Brian and Dave [1] are to have the IETF act as a honest broker by sticking to the technical questions. One of the problems with preventing the internet from becoming an accidental victim is that there will always be some good reason to depart from the technical position. Once that path is taken there is no going back. That is not to say that the IAB or IESG members should not be in the room to talk to people. >The areas I have personally addressed have been largley around >allocation of assigned numbers. We need that function to work properly, >be it for addresses, TCP/UDP port numbers, ASNs, or some other code >point. We should also at least be aware of proposals that have >technical implications. A classic case is when someone wants to know >exactly the path a specific packet has taken or will take. "I don't >want my packets going through the Grand Duchy of Fenwick!" My view is that the protocol registry is an IETF [2] matter (that covers port assignments and the code points). Addresses and ASNs assigments are relevant to the IETF when the people asking for that can make a strong technical case for the assignment. Some proposals, such as the one for the Grand Duchy of Fenwick :-), have technical implications. There are also other implications. Mixing the two dilutes the technical argument and causes suspicion. Regards, S. Moonesamy 1. I did not double-check this and I may have missed the names of other people who made the argument. 2. I am not distinguishing between the IAB and IETF here. From jcurran@istaff.org Sun Feb 9 03:19:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6353A1A01FB for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:19:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5JKjyhTIIaI5 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:19:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F92B1A00AB for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:19:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-108-45-30-69.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([108.45.30.69] helo=[192.168.1.9]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WCSQS-000BRb-62; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:19:52 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 108.45.30.69 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX182Ag+aQy6MLx1043LMBJo7 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5AD3AFC4-609F-47F9-9B46-4724BAAEF27A" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: John Curran In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:19:32 -0500 Message-Id: <4C57454A-0017-4B7C-9187-0FED3291B0FA@istaff.org> References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <92068C82-5E75-411B-A09F-DFC036D05669@istaff.org> To: Phillip Hallam-Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cr=E9pin-Leblond?= , internetgovtech@iab.org, John Levine Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:19:59 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5AD3AFC4-609F-47F9-9B46-4724BAAEF27A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Feb 8, 2014, at 9:44 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker = wrote: > On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:08 PM, John Curran = wrote: > Do the service providers have any say in your proposal, or are they = just the test > subjects who get to evolve after the fact? >=20 > They are already test subjects. Let us imagine China sends ICANN a = letter saying that they have decided to take the IPv6 prefix XYZ/24 and = that it is inadvisable to issue those addresses to the RIRs as they will = conflict with addresses allocated in China. >=20 > Would anyone in their right mind who knew about this accept an = allocation from within the block? I can't see that happening.=20 > ... Outcome indeterminate. As you correctly note, we're already in the = midst of an experiment - specifically, the Internet registry system is simply a = cooperative exercise in mutual technical coordination. The IETF determines size and = shape of a given parameter field (including IP addresses and DNS names) but = neither the IETF, nor the Internet numbers registry system has any authority to = mandate protocol usage with coordinated identifiers. Feel free to use whatever = you want in your own realm (just please keep it separate from those who are = coordinating and do not misrepresent that your worldview of identifiers is somehow = aligned when you're actually not coordinating at all...) It's based on cooperation and coordination; there's no magic involved. = It is quite possible for a government to do something by fiat, but that is _not_ = working in the=20 system, it's creation of their own system. Obviously such a = non-coordinated model could be mandated today by a government, it does not need to be enabled = in any=20 way by the IETF, and ultimately it is up to each service provider in the = community=20 to determine what response is appropriate.=20 > ICANN is a US corporation. It is therefore under US law. ... > So the lesson I draw is that if the power exists, some idiot is likely = to try to use it, no matter how idiotic that might be. > Of course it would be rather hard for ICANN to pull back blocks = allocated to the RIRs or condition issue of new blocks on compliance = with some US 'blockade' requirement. ARIN actually is the RIR that would be most affected, and it's one of = the reasons=20 that we've been quite active with education efforts. The reality (as = opposed to=20 fantasy) is that we've had no legislation which impacts the ability of = the registry to operate, and in fact, enjoy a very high level of understanding in the = appropriate US congressional committees, DoC/NTIA, and WH/OSTP about the importance=20= of an Internet number registry system which is free to operate as = determined by the community. It is true that this may not always be the case (but = equally true=20 that ARIN does not need to always be domiciled in a US jurisdiction...)=20= > You are not thinking like a diplomat. They consider potential threats = that might arise over centuries. Excellent - I have a number of concerns about the long-term implications = of=20 quantum entanglement on the Internet registry system, but will would = like to=20 make sure that there's still a coordinated system in place a decade from = now before I reach out for a dose of diplomatic vision... Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. --Apple-Mail=_5AD3AFC4-609F-47F9-9B46-4724BAAEF27A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 On Feb = 8, 2014, at 9:44 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> = wrote:

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:08 PM, John = Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:
Do the service providers have any say in your = proposal, or are they just the test
subjects who get to evolve after the = fact?

They are already test subjects. = Let us imagine China sends ICANN a letter saying that they have decided = to take the IPv6 prefix XYZ/24 and that it is inadvisable to issue those = addresses to the RIRs as they will conflict with addresses allocated in = China.

Would anyone in their right mind who knew about this = accept an allocation from within the block? I can't see that = happening. 
...

Outcome indeterminate. =   As you correctly note, we're already in the midst of
an = experiment - specifically, the Internet registry system is simply a = cooperative
exercise in mutual technical coordination. =  The IETF determines size and shape
of a given parameter = field (including IP addresses and DNS names) but neither
the = IETF, nor the Internet numbers registry system has any authority to = mandate
protocol usage with coordinated identifiers. =  Feel free to use whatever you want
in your own realm = (just please keep it separate from those who are = coordinating
and do not misrepresent that your worldview of = identifiers is somehow aligned
when you're actually not = coordinating at all...)

It's based on = cooperation and coordination; there's no magic involved.   It is = quite
possible for a government to do something by fiat, but = that is _not_ working in the 
system, it's creation of = their own system.  Obviously such a non-coordinated = model
could be mandated today by a government, it does not = need to be enabled in any 
way by the IETF, and = ultimately it is up to each service provider in the = community 
to determine what response is = appropriate. 

ICANN is a US corporation. It is therefore under US law. = ...
So the lesson I = draw is that if the power exists, some idiot is likely to try to use it, = no matter how idiotic that might be.
Of course it would be = rather hard for ICANN to pull back blocks allocated to the RIRs or = condition issue of new blocks on compliance with some US 'blockade' = requirement.

ARIN = actually is the RIR that would be most affected, and it's one of the = reasons 
that we've been quite active with education = efforts.   The reality (as opposed to 
fantasy) is = that we've had no legislation which impacts the ability of the = registry
to operate, and in fact, enjoy a very high level of = understanding in the appropriate
US congressional committees, = DoC/NTIA, and WH/OSTP about the importance 
of an = Internet number registry system which is free to operate as determined = by
the community.  It is true that this may not always be = the case (but equally true 
that ARIN does not need to = always be domiciled in a US = jurisdiction...) 

You= are not thinking like a diplomat. They consider potential threats that = might arise over = centuries.

Excellent = - I have a number of concerns about the long-term implications = of 
quantum entanglement on the Internet registry system, = but will would like to 
make sure that there's still a = coordinated system in place a decade from now
before I reach = out for a dose of diplomatic = vision...

Thanks!
/John

<= /div>
Disclaimer: My views = alone.




= --Apple-Mail=_5AD3AFC4-609F-47F9-9B46-4724BAAEF27A-- From paf@frobbit.se Sun Feb 9 03:42:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF69F1A05DF for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:42:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mHW7fKNYymK5 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:42:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875351A05B2 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:42:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ix-2.local (c-98-218-15-63.hsd1.dc.comcast.net [98.218.15.63]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80BC220455; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:42:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52F769BC.6000407@frobbit.se> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 06:42:52 -0500 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Curran , John R Levine References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <7D100758-9DDC-4D6E-B8B9-FACCF7CD36FA@istaff.org> In-Reply-To: <7D100758-9DDC-4D6E-B8B9-FACCF7CD36FA@istaff.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HHJmMhr2DscxUwDSqXSKjUQGvpkJkTGbr" Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:42:56 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --HHJmMhr2DscxUwDSqXSKjUQGvpkJkTGbr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2014-02-08 18:40, John Curran wrote: > If every country becomes a registry authority First of all, there is no definition of "country" that is even close to be detailed enough to even start this discussion. Patrik --HHJmMhr2DscxUwDSqXSKjUQGvpkJkTGbr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iD8DBQFS92m8rMabGguI180RApkKAKCV2BzoslNkQAU3G98gj/9xSysydgCeNPLk IGaswtVJ+nrjVn5nvb4PrOg= =Zm9Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HHJmMhr2DscxUwDSqXSKjUQGvpkJkTGbr-- From paf@frobbit.se Sun Feb 9 03:46:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDA61A05E0 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:46:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id djXyjUEx0WQm for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:46:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740021A05DF for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:46:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ix-2.local (c-98-218-15-63.hsd1.dc.comcast.net [98.218.15.63]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 348032162E; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:46:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52F76A86.4070509@frobbit.se> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 06:46:14 -0500 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phillip Hallam-Baker , John Curran References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <92068C82-5E75-411B-A09F-DFC036D05669@istaff.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Kxs3WcGlhekR5VorfpDXobxldnmWQjREH" Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cr=E9pin-Leblond?= , internetgovtech@iab.org, John Levine Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:46:20 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Kxs3WcGlhekR5VorfpDXobxldnmWQjREH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2014-02-08 21:44, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > If you wargame the scenarios, the most likely outcome is that ICANN > collapses and the DNS registries and RIRs found a replacement. Ultimately, specifically for IP-addresses, the ISPs using addresses are the ones that decide what address space they use, what routes to announce, and what routes to accept. The rest is just a question on how to do their life easier. Patrik --Kxs3WcGlhekR5VorfpDXobxldnmWQjREH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iD8DBQFS92qIrMabGguI180RAhC5AJ0W3bgDWy5FwugGFKetSymoPBiyYwCcCRf7 zzq15q2HX1gvMz3p0X8FtTI= =gwQA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Kxs3WcGlhekR5VorfpDXobxldnmWQjREH-- From john-ietf@jck.com Sun Feb 9 04:48:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C688F1A05F9 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 04:48:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.148 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ce-Rllt_rstq for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 04:48:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175961A02AA for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 04:48:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1WCTnL-0007dn-0P; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:47:35 -0500 Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:47:31 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: John Levine , internetgovtech@iab.org Message-ID: <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@[192.168.1.128]> In-Reply-To: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: ocl@gih.com Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:48:12 -0000 --On Saturday, 08 February, 2014 17:31 +0000 John Levine wrote: >... > PS: Olivier is too modest to tell you that he is the head of > the ICANN ALAC, which has arranged for each of its > consistutent organizations (ALS) to send a representative on > an all-expense paid junket to London for the June ICANN > meeting. John, To draw that comment even slightly close to the supposedly-restricted purpose of this list, I think there is reason for concern about the degree to which ICANN's structure and spending patterns creates biases against adequate representation of inconvenient technical issues, give the RIRs incentives to focus on their own protection from ICANN political decisions, and, perhaps most important, give the needs and cost-benefit considerations (many of them actually technical) of actual end users little effective voice. There is also reason to question whether the design and organizational structure of the ALAC is adequate to capture and represent those end user issues and others [1] or whether it is merely elaborate theater to permit claiming to other actors that those users and the public are adequately represented. Those concerns exist, or should, whether those ICANN structural issues are the result of some more or less elaborate conspiracy [2][3] and whether they are actually effective at whatever they do. Against that backdrop and the understanding that ICANN meetings are well-attended by lots of well-funded representatives of special (mostly economic) interests as well as ample representation of RIRs, ISOC, ICANN staff, various people who are taken as speaking for the IETF community, and so on --substantially all of whose participation in that activity are supported by some entity that thinks it has something to gain from their being present -- I don't see much basis for singling out ALAC as part of the problem... unless one is really just expressing frustration (as I sometimes have) that some particular group gets subsidized to attend while people one perceives as far more worthy do not.[4] best, john ---------- [1] One needs to be careful about that claim, not just because of how ICANN constituted the ALAC but that, as soon as one claims that a particular organization represents a large population but is selected by those who claim membership and qualify under rules that are not widely known and understood in that population and/or who manage to vote, one is only a step away from a rather strong argument that governments are the best representatives of their populations. [2] By governments, greedy domainers, ICANN staff leadership, creatures of various species who have found feeding at ICANN's trough attractive for their own reasons, or perhaps alien invaders. [3] The primary alternate hypothesis is that they are accidents of planning and design by well-intentioned people who didn't adequately explore foreseeable futures and contingencies or adequately understand the "be careful what you wish for" principle (the latter being diseases from which the IETF has proven not to be exempt). [4] Remember that a stake is historically a long, sturdy, pointed object, often used for the disposal of those with dissenting views. From hallam@gmail.com Sun Feb 9 04:59:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F1DB1A06D6 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 04:59:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vyrTdMYbTMH0 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 04:59:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177CD1A05FD for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 04:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id q8so4070775lbi.0 for ; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 04:59:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=i1MAmkPorhjI7YTrAiL/WE6xj5DXoOvOuRiPvpkOe40=; b=G8ZoPhkVTARonYF8hgFdc8+469aGamYMYYMbR54bH5WqNGkijHGKnwTuL6Q8m7eZgn 76FDFROTvBABmqBzV3MLDE5zPRafYTvAu/5PdWlLLEUQj5bxLj6MrGIbyQNwTOEGaOgY al4Rze3qkExVjFVUs1TVie31saE4jyP/5PTtD/fTf2YHZ3ansxiR8nzIyYq+dUbcTwCo UA09VViyRT0Cu5QJI2EMvsAIcIKxA7HBdFBlPegMms6GtZRDw1GmipdG/Ingbo1NBUHF lUn44o4QEanEXVcEcWVTp3pXF74ZrnNmvoioO1dqTkcQzgDAoood829dCC8x8W5/TztY mHcQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.154.202 with SMTP id vq10mr16972076lbb.3.1391950791366; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 04:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 04:59:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@192.168.1.128> References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@192.168.1.128> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 07:59:51 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: John C Klensin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112bf4476decb04f1f8cce5 Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cr=E9pin=2DLeblond?= , internetgovtech@iab.org, John Levine Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:59:54 -0000 --089e0112bf4476decb04f1f8cce5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:47 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > [4] Remember that a stake is historically a long, sturdy, > pointed object, often used for the disposal of those with > dissenting views. Thanks, I am now thinking of a Larson cartoon showing an Internet user looking up nervously at a group of natives holding stakes surrounding him, one of whom looks like Vladimir the Putin. The caption reads "This is not the multi-stakeholder model Harold had expected" -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --089e0112bf4476decb04f1f8cce5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= un, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:47 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

[4] Remember that a stake is historically a long, sturdy,
pointed object, often used for the disposal of those with
dissenting views.=A0

Thanks, I am now thinking of a Larson cartoon showing an Internet use= r looking up nervously at a group of natives holding stakes surrounding him= , one of whom looks like Vladimir the Putin. The caption reads "This i= s not the multi-stakeholder model Harold had expected"


-= -
Website: http://hallambaker.com/<= /a>
--089e0112bf4476decb04f1f8cce5-- From hallam@gmail.com Sun Feb 9 05:31:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982C91A02E1 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 05:31:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PdfkwKf_Cxi3 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 05:31:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x233.google.com (mail-lb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFE91A02B0 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 05:31:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l4so3986207lbv.38 for ; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 05:31:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=vYnJMs5RWSTCTmc050/XU81uETMe+5yRUtxk2KRJ9lk=; b=dIEQhDqZfBJTQh8tBntZFjvmXxCG5kBSgo3kJeuGqX/HgbDwgjsOT5qLXA0tmehSQz u5cLtseUyOxXs2u80U5yAaNlCFEuzV1g0L2423p1p7rfK6MyZqqPvGo+cyuieeeM27Uq v53+NstFCcXmwZerVomjfK8IIeM/afMynkCnNZY1hIOLcl9e9FV2zDbod2naVkA3nCtm P1bc53oP2YhrEKI9B/mwZ7g3Xu36rAVpOLsxt8KhApDG4T6GZ6SURGsO4Egy+eERH6v1 cYhWxjubs1wq3xKkg2fgjEp/w75Vee46GRcehmRcSZLdG0/AhWQJE464PK5Jv4LdW7K/ ydwQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.164.35 with SMTP id yn3mr952673lbb.45.1391952677122; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 05:31:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 05:31:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52F769BC.6000407@frobbit.se> References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <7D100758-9DDC-4D6E-B8B9-FACCF7CD36FA@istaff.org> <52F769BC.6000407@frobbit.se> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 08:31:17 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33530dd39fa04f1f93c1d Cc: John Curran , John R Levine , internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:31:20 -0000 --001a11c33530dd39fa04f1f93c1d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m wrote= : > On 2014-02-08 18:40, John Curran wrote: > > If every country becomes a registry authority > > First of all, there is no definition of "country" that is even close to > be detailed enough to even start this discussion. > That is a silly argument to be making to diplomats. They have an existing procedure for deciding what a country is for purposes of allocating spectrum and orbit slots. You might not like it, but they have one. On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:19 AM, John Curran wrote: You are not thinking like a diplomat. They consider potential threats that > might arise over centuries. > > > Excellent - I have a number of concerns about the long-term implications > of > quantum entanglement on the Internet registry system, but will would like > to > make sure that there's still a coordinated system in place a decade from > now > before I reach out for a dose of diplomatic vision... > Diplomats are concerned more with threats than vision. All I am arguing for here is that instead of giving every threat the 'We don't see that as a problem' brush off that Steve Crocker gave the Russians, Palestinians, Egyptians who went to raise very specific concerns with him. --=20 Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --001a11c33530dd39fa04f1f93c1d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m <paf@frobbit.se<= /a>> wrote:
On 2014-02-08 18:40, John Curran wrote: > If every country becomes a registry authority

First of all, there is no definition of "country" that is e= ven close to
be detailed enough to even start this discussion.

=
That is a silly argument to be making to diplomats. They have an= existing procedure for deciding what a country is for purposes of allocati= ng spectrum and orbit slots.

You might not like it, but they have one.=A0



<= div class=3D"">
Y= ou are not thinking like a diplomat. They consider potential threats that m= ight arise over centuries.

Excellent - I have a number of conc= erns about the long-term implications of=A0
quantum entanglement = on the Internet registry system, but will would like to=A0
make s= ure that there's still a coordinated system in place a decade from now<= /div>
before I reach out for a dose of diplomatic vision...

Diplomats are concerned more with threats than = vision.

All I am arguing for here is that instead = of giving every threat the 'We don't see that as a problem' bru= sh off that Steve Crocker gave the Russians, Palestinians, Egyptians who we= nt to raise very specific concerns with him.

=A0
<= /div>

-= -
Website: http://hallambaker.com/<= /a>
--001a11c33530dd39fa04f1f93c1d-- From paf@frobbit.se Sun Feb 9 05:43:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0801A02A8 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 05:43:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.797 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBHPQXKIKVoX for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 05:43:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5061A02B0 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 05:43:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.17] (c-98-218-15-63.hsd1.dc.comcast.net [98.218.15.63]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F36E020096; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:43:06 +0100 (CET) References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <7D100758-9DDC-4D6E-B8B9-FACCF7CD36FA@istaff.org> <52F769BC.6000407@frobbit.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-736D7829-7247-4BB0-874B-924C7C73487E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <0D2EE415-12A0-46D2-B738-C0107AD252B5@frobbit.se> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11B554a) From: =?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?= Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 08:43:04 -0500 To: Phillip Hallam-Baker Cc: John Curran , John R Levine , "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:43:09 -0000 --Apple-Mail-736D7829-7247-4BB0-874B-924C7C73487E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 9 feb 2014, at 08:31, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Patrik F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m wrote: >> On 2014-02-08 18:40, John Curran wrote: >> > If every country becomes a registry authority >>=20 >> First of all, there is no definition of "country" that is even close to >> be detailed enough to even start this discussion. >=20 > That is a silly argument to be making to diplomats. They have an existing p= rocedure for deciding what a country is for purposes of allocating spectrum a= nd orbit slots. No, members of ITU do have a way of dealing with that issue for the allocati= ons done under the umber sas of ITU. This has nothing to do with "countries"= , or rather, is one for me quite limiting definition of the term. The RIRs have their own similar system, and both have weaknesses when/if you= compare with what legislations are put in place here and there on the plane= t. Patrik --Apple-Mail-736D7829-7247-4BB0-874B-924C7C73487E Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Patrik F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m <paf@fro= bbit.se> wrote:
On 2014-02-08 18:40, John Curran= wrote:
> If every country becomes a registry authority

First of all, there is no definition of "country" that is even close t= o
be detailed enough to even start this discussion.


That is a silly argument to be= making to diplomats. They have an existing procedure for deciding what a co= untry is for purposes of allocating spectrum and orbit slots.

No, members of ITU do have a way of dealing with that issue for= the allocations done under the umber sas of ITU. This has nothing to do wit= h "countries", or rather, is one for me quite limiting definition of the ter= m.

The RIRs have their own similar system, and both= have weaknesses when/if you compare with what legislations are put in place= here and there on the planet.

   Patrik<= /div>

= --Apple-Mail-736D7829-7247-4BB0-874B-924C7C73487E-- From sm@elandsys.com Sun Feb 9 07:32:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B091A06DD for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 07:32:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.938 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.938 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GTC1n0jh0RTm for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 07:32:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A2C1A06DC for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 07:32:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.137.135]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s19FVk76029350 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Feb 2014 07:31:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1391959919; bh=OAeLEzpfU5Dlh6KMvPhySSe+yKos/t2ut5R/i+GrJ4Q=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=wZN4k+ujQsEnGw+SHVFnyySLpsAKdw8XUmlD6/KilCOk8XHeJvr+whuwULwIla0tv mQub7uB7C1keOyMkJsG5xI6m6QZtw1nZ8lKO3hFXQQnzHQqCUpjk+dyNG3KpmL2x0U 6glFzTh0gtdgfMjfqnWPVTXvdfifN4joPUMLs/HQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1391959919; i=@elandsys.com; bh=OAeLEzpfU5Dlh6KMvPhySSe+yKos/t2ut5R/i+GrJ4Q=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=nM662iz4IA48WLfJCUVDCIJGHltGJJniXG03Jck2mLi3eblVZXDBTp6coXbmwPO+4 BuO3hihkZ0/9P1VRRzyystg1zbUBav9vHgYrV4bNB46UoIu8ORewshQwXhXairQWnc qVME0KXw/eWAm2ypopdVYd+DGeFkJMN3Otj92XjQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140209065243.0b2f71a0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 07:16:09 -0800 To: "John Levine" , internetgovtech@iab.org From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:32:02 -0000 Hi John, At 09:31 08-02-2014, John Levine wrote: > >The World Conference on International Telecommunications (Dubai, 2012), > >[...] > >Remember a few messages back when I said it's 98% about Money? The >way that WCIT jumped the shark is the most extreme example yet. Back >in the good old days, small countries got a vast revenue stream of >telephone settlements, with the ITU as clearinghouse. A few decades >ago the rich countries led by the American FCC forced the settlements >down to actual costs, which means they've disappeared. > >There are more small countries than big ones, and their dream has been >to get their settlements back via the Internet. (The fact that there >is no workable way to do it since packets are not phone calls is >irrelevant.) WCIT went totally off the rails, and ended with Europe, >North America, and all the other rich countries walking out. It's >pretty easy to see what was going on when you see who signed, e.g., >Brazil and Argentina did, Chile didn't. From http://www.it-sp.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1009 "a proposal by European Telecommunications Network Operators (ETNO) to impose a sender tax on large-volume, over-the-top content providers" There might be some small countries wishing to get their settlements back via the Internet. However, the proposal originated from European companies. In my uninformed opinion the money thing causes more harm thank good to small countries. Regards, S. Moonesamy From dhc@dcrocker.net Sun Feb 9 08:04:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D261A06EF for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 08:04:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nQAlegiPsoo6 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 08:04:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98131A03B3 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 08:04:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s19G41mP021693 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 08:04:05 -0800 Message-ID: <52F7A6CB.6010109@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:03:23 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Priority: 2 (High) References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@[192.168.1.128]> In-Reply-To: <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@[192.168.1.128]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:04:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 16:04:06 -0000 > To draw that comment even slightly close to the > supposedly-restricted purpose of this list, As if it weren't already obvious, I think this highlights that -- as with most other venues for discussing Internet governance -- this list lacks pragmatic focus. It is therefore demonstrating the usual tendencies to pursue old, frustrating, and frankly irrelevant topics. TO THE OWNERS OF THIS LIST: Please start setting and managing its goals and facilitating conversation so that those goals are achieved. This includes actively directing distracting exchanges to cease. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc@dcrocker.net Sun Feb 9 09:37:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B7121A040F for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:37:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wyxmytCaEz9c for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:37:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C8C1A040B for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:37:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s19HbYkM025007 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:37:37 -0800 Message-ID: <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 09:36:56 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin , internetgovtech@iab.org References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@[192.168.1.128]> <52F7A6CB.6010109@dcrocker.net> <0C4D2B08E9946CD3AE03FAD2@[192.168.1.128]> In-Reply-To: <0C4D2B08E9946CD3AE03FAD2@[192.168.1.128]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 09 Feb 2014 09:37:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 17:37:39 -0000 On 2/9/2014 9:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > I think the question of how (or if) the perspective of the > technical community [1] is represented in "Internet Governance" > discussions is directly relevant to this list Oh. Is that what you folk were discussing? It didn't seem to me it was. It sounded much more like a re-hashing of concerns about the existing 'governance' groups and their problems. To the extent that we focus on organizational structure and behavior of other organizations, we are not discussing technical issues. The technical issues do not depend upon the style or structure of the groups who might consume our commentary. No, I'm not naive about the real-world relevance of the style and structure of those groups. But I also know that the IETF cannot do anything about those issues and that the instant we move away from specifically-technical discussion, we cease to have the group competence or relevance that we need. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From john-ietf@jck.com Sun Feb 9 09:45:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B95F1A01F5 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:45:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.148 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pJ1EgUDKabV8 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:45:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F541A01F1 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:45:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1WCYRK-0008BX-Md; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:45:11 -0500 Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 12:44:27 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, internetgovtech@iab.org Message-ID: <0E10E16214AA00F4FD39EA7D@[192.168.1.128]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 17:45:18 -0000 --On Sunday, 09 February, 2014 08:03 -0800 Dave Crocker wrote: >> To draw that comment even slightly close to the >> supposedly-restricted purpose of this list, > > As if it weren't already obvious, I think this highlights that > -- as with most other venues for discussing Internet > governance -- this list lacks pragmatic focus. > > It is therefore demonstrating the usual tendencies to pursue > old, frustrating, and frankly irrelevant topics. Dave, responding to this may be bad judgment or may just confirm your point, but I think that maybe something useful can be gained. I don't know if your comment above referred to John Levine's original comment or my response from which the above was quoted, but I think the question of how (or if) the perspective of the technical community [1] is represented in "Internet Governance" discussions is directly relevant to this list and, indeed, is both pragmatic and focused. If we have no legitimate voice at the table, or are "represented" by those who don't understand (and often don't care about) the issues we think are important, then either fixing that that should be the main focus of this list or the list itself is irrelevant. Put differently, it makes no difference whether we agree to move left or move right if we aren't the decision-makers and no actual decision-maker cares. It almost doesn't matter whether we can agree on a direction or not except that, if we hold discussions and obviously cannot agree, that strengthens the hands of those who prefer that we be treated as irrelevant and ignored. As to the lack of focus, I subscribed to this list only reluctantly because I think "we" --as well as "Internet governance" discussions generally-- are developing too many lists and too many forums in which, as you put it, the old and frustrating topics are rehashed again and again, in parallel and in many places. That benefits those who would like the claim that the community (or communities) and "stateholders" are so confused and divided about what they want that mature actors (e.g., governments or the groups often described as "lawyers and politicians") should decide things without regard to "our" [very confused] views. It also impresses those who confuse volume of discussion, numbers of lists, and meeting attendance with progress. IMO, unless this list is clearly differentiated from discussions going on elsewhere, we should all spend our time in other ways... at least I will. regards, john [1] Whatever that means. You and I might agree on a definition, but it would almost certainly not be the same as the ones that many people who claim to, or are assumed by others to, represent this community would assume. From hallam@gmail.com Sun Feb 9 09:52:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCFF1A03B2 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:52:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QK12g-MThvAz for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com (mail-lb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5AD1A040B for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w7so4112356lbi.35 for ; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 09:52:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AB1uXyLkZiD/cDYq5na5Wu5FZfcEEzC6K6pn9iJ2pRM=; b=E8Re4UQ+t31ojpqGwO40+hyGZllIi92yuBGlphs0zDpatbIgUiy9xxo8aERTtgVMuH Atk3lphiDybpJC9af6mu2sCXuXAm4gMQDy3zPsVZIDfpD+yNpq+qbdpico29o16jS+ZL WguhFfARothtmH1dNuMQ86orJxuZSQAS8qo8bcSAcBesPx2l5Lfhgc4GvkDGKNRVJKMM lFXaMwg5/qwaMqecSx8J7xbSxMcfBPQOZU5wanyNFNHHjuLIR+eV+ruZxUWxrKBx1wV9 Y57oouxrTTMECxqnPtUDLR1sdRBAif9cGEIEb07RhxAtuZaCiaXZvLnW0HMwIh3B1PmH eHow== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.138.233 with SMTP id qt9mr2579716lbb.34.1391968370307; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 09:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 09:52:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@192.168.1.128> <52F7A6CB.6010109@dcrocker.net> <0C4D2B08E9946CD3AE03FAD2@192.168.1.128> <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:52:50 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: Dave Crocker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012297104037b804f1fce4b2 Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, John C Klensin Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 17:52:53 -0000 --089e012297104037b804f1fce4b2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Responding but not replying to Dave. The meta problem as I see it is that the government side come to the table with concrete technical and institutional proposals rather than a set of requirements and interests. The technical community then discuss the technical basis for the proposals and reject them without considering the interests that are driving them. To top it all we have a certain faction that is ideologically opposed to the very notion of government and another faction that sees the exercise of what Joe Nye calls crude power (as opposed to soft or smart power) as the ultimate goal of all political interactions. --089e012297104037b804f1fce4b2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Responding but not replying to = Dave.

The m= eta problem as I see it is that the government side come to the table with = concrete technical and institutional proposals rather than a set of require= ments and interests. The technical community then discuss the technical bas= is for the proposals and reject them without considering the interests that= are driving them.

To top it a= ll we have a certain faction that is ideologically opposed to the very noti= on of government and another faction that sees the exercise of what Joe Nye= calls crude power (as opposed to soft or smart power) as the ultimate goal= of all political interactions.
--089e012297104037b804f1fce4b2-- From dhc@dcrocker.net Sun Feb 9 10:44:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B111A0446 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 10:44:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cXfl-oX-qnh1 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 10:44:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D251A046A for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 10:44:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s19IiWmk027671 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 10:44:36 -0800 Message-ID: <52F7CC6A.3000400@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 10:43:54 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internetgovtech@iab.org References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@192.168.1.128> <52F7A6CB.6010109@dcrocker.net> <0C4D2B08E9946CD3AE03FAD2@192.168.1.128> <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 09 Feb 2014 10:44:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 18:44:39 -0000 > The meta problem as I see it is that the government side come to the > table with concrete technical and institutional proposals rather than a > set of requirements and interests. The technical community then discuss > the technical basis for the proposals and reject them without > considering the interests that are driving them. It can make sense of the IETF to take a set of detailed proposals and abstract from them the functional requirements, to facilitate analysis of an existing proposal or even to try to formulate a better proposal. It does not make sense for the IETF to consider the "interests" of other groups. It's not our job. We aren't very good at it. It doesn't affect the technical issues. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jcurran@istaff.org Sun Feb 9 11:02:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB4C1A03FB for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:02:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HERNBqRJ6XC8 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:02:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF95F1A01A8 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from 50-201-180-2-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([50.201.180.2] helo=[10.10.5.113]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WCZdi-000FAs-VG; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:02:03 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 50.201.180.2 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+ii3ehnF+mAqxrkw3+MnKE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: John Curran In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:01:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@192.168.1.128> <52F7A6CB.6010109@dcrocker.net> <0C4D2B08E9946CD3AE03FAD2@192.168.1.128> <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> To: Phillip Hallam-Baker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, John C Klensin , Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:02:05 -0000 On Feb 9, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker = wrote: > Responding but not replying to Dave. >=20 > The meta problem as I see it is that the government side come to the = table with concrete technical and institutional proposals rather than a = set of requirements and interests. The technical community then discuss = the technical basis for the proposals and reject them without = considering the interests that are driving them. That might be true in some of the interactions, but certainly wasn't the = case when it comes to the IPv6 Country Internet Registries (CIR) proposal. It = actually led to an correspondence group within the ITU dedicated to receiving reports of = issues with=20 the present IPv6 Internet number registry system (i.e. specifically the = concerns that led to the proposal) After several years with no submissions, the group = was closed;=20 for the record, it's fairly hard for the technical community to consider = "concerns in the present system" when the government(s) won't actually state their = interests. > To top it all we have a certain faction that is ideologically opposed = to the very notion of government and another faction that sees the = exercise of what Joe Nye calls crude power (as opposed to soft or smart = power) as the ultimate goal of all political interactions. One would think that it wouldn't be difficult for governments to state = some reasoning=20 (political, technical, or otherwise), particularly in their own = multi-lateral forum, but it=20 was repeatedly indicated that their preference was to consider the = matter behind=20 closed doors via political machinations rather than any open expression = of needs=20 or requirements. =20 I have no issues with governments and believe that there are some = responsibilities which are inherent to them, but saw firsthand a lack of interest in = working with the Internet community and its expectations for open and transparent = discourse on this matter. FYI, /John From avri@acm.org Sun Feb 9 11:04:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4751A050A for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:04:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.664 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id weSMTYysdKA3 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEA31A01A8 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.204]) by atl4mhob07.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s19J4Mjg021396 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:04:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 1777 invoked by uid 0); 9 Feb 2014 19:04:22 -0000 X-TCPREMOTEIP: 68.15.42.104 X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (avri@ella.com@68.15.42.104) by 0 with ESMTPA; 9 Feb 2014 19:04:22 -0000 Message-ID: <52F7D134.5000400@acm.org> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 14:04:20 -0500 From: Avri Doria User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internetgovtech@iab.org References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@192.168.1.128> <52F7A6CB.6010109@dcrocker.net> <0C4D2B08E9946CD3AE03FAD2@192.168.1.128> <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> <52F7CC6A.3000400@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <52F7CC6A.3000400@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140209-0, 02/09/2014), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:04:25 -0000 Hi, On 09-Feb-14 13:43, Dave Crocker wrote: > > It does not make sense for the IETF to consider the "interests" of other > groups. I thought we were trying to make the Internet better. Who is it better for? Often in the tussle of engineering decisions one can take one technical direction or another. Those decision are affected by all sorts of non-technical interests, from one company having a profit interest, to another group having a academic interest, to a third group having a human rights interest. If we aren't interested in the "'interests' of other groups", are we serving just own own interests? Another way to say it, is that engineering trades off are not socially neutral in terms of their affect. When several technical solutions will do, which interests should be chosen? > > It's not our job. > I think it is. > We aren't very good at it. Ok, won't argue with you there. But perhaps one of the reason we are not good at is because we refuse to consider how to do it. > > It doesn't affect the technical issues. It may not affect the technical issues proper, but it does affect which of several equally acceptable technical paths is the better way for the shepherds to pick. avri From john-ietf@jck.com Sun Feb 9 11:08:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90A741A050A for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:08:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.148 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Czj3VtAwIuFt for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:08:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366381A01F4 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:08:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1]) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1WCZk9-0008K0-9F; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 14:08:42 -0500 Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 14:08:32 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, internetgovtech@iab.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@[192.168.1.128]> <52F7A6CB.6010109@dcrocker.net> <0C4D2B08E9946CD3AE03FAD2@[192.168.1.128]> <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:08:54 -0000 --On Sunday, 09 February, 2014 09:36 -0800 Dave Crocker wrote: > It sounded much more like a re-hashing of concerns about the > existing 'governance' groups and their problems. > > To the extent that we focus on organizational structure and > behavior of other organizations, we are not discussing > technical issues. To the extent to which we have no plausible way to have the outputs of our technical discussions influence actual outcomes, those discussions are pointless. >... > No, I'm not naive about the real-world relevance of the style > and structure of those groups. About style and structure generally, I agree. But I'm specifically concerned about the vehicle we use for taking whatever technical conclusions we reach and projecting them into those other arenas in a way that has a realistic hope of being effective. If we can't do that, all of us would better spend our time on protocol issues, hoping devoutly that the issues about relevance, input paths, and leverage you seem inclined to dismiss will just sort themselves out without us. > But I also know that the IETF > cannot do anything about those issues and that the instant we > move away from specifically-technical discussion, we cease to > have the group competence or relevance that we need. If one accepts that position and carries it to its logical conclusion then having an IETF-based "Internet governance" discussion (with or without pretenses about "tech") is a pointless exercise, exceeding the competence and relevance of most of those who are participating. It might be that is the right conclusion but, for some reason, the IAB doesn't seem to think so. I also disagree that the IETF "cannot do anything about those issues". Our silence on some of them is taken as endorsement; our participation as stronger endorsement, legitimization, and even ratification of positions those bodies are taking as technically reasonable. We could decide to stop doing those things, to stop appointing representatives (and "liaisons", Board members, etc.) to bodies that are taking "governance" positions that are not rooted firming in the technology or that say things that are technically stupid. We could direct our leadership to say out of leadership coordination meetings, especially once that might lead to public statements that, given your assessment above, lie beyond the IETF's group competence and relevance. I make no claims to being an engineer, but part of what I've always been taught about competent engineering is that designs have to include the entire relevant constraint space. From that perspective, it seems to me that what you are trying to do is to exclude some of the most important issues and constraints by saying "not technical enough, so we can and should ignore them". Yes, not doing that may require an interdisciplinary understanding of potentially-complex issues and is hard work. But I believe that excluding things on the basis you seem to be proposing tends to lead to bad engineering and/or to irrelevancy when decisions are actually made. I still believe that there are lines that can and should be drawn. As my first note in this thread (which I assume you read beyond the sentence that you quoted) indicated, I think questions of how ICANN chooses to organize itself of spend money are irrelevant to this list and ought to be off-topic even if how technical input is expected to reach that particular body and how it is dealt with after it gets there is not... at least as long as that organization is presenting itself as the leader of the technical community and spokesperson/ spokesorganizaton for technical issues. I believe that some of the theories about economic and other motivations that have been presented here are equally irrelevant except insofar as they contribute to the understanding by people on this list of why getting technical/engineering judgments into the political arena can be difficult. Finally... --On Sunday, 09 February, 2014 14:01 -0500 John Curran wrote: >... > I have no issues with governments and believe that there are > some responsibilities which are inherent to them, but saw > firsthand a lack of interest in working with the Internet > community and its expectations for open and transparent > discourse on this matter. And because, as I believe, our developing technical positions is irrelevant if no one with leverage and authority is listening, John's observation takes us back to the more fundamental question of what this list is about and what it actually hopes to accomplish beyond diverting energy from other, potentially more relevant, forums and contexts. Back to lurking. john From hallam@gmail.com Sun Feb 9 11:14:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35BC31A03E6 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:14:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Scg94SYvCpG9 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:14:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x235.google.com (mail-lb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3350C1A0511 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:14:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id z11so3093789lbi.26 for ; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:14:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+vJ4c8MGBzp1u3BXgwAzmW+EEvqKZgc/n/BQzauT06Y=; b=lXLGbAZWsCqW2MQJaUA5kQs3fxU3Gb0p/Xbi93nE3YUXwjpDUVRhmQ2SB4y515wxNa 8nxojmzwd7llyghfu9VmJLm7qFwis5tfZP7YXzmpkLNIAjakrpH10BRKYN5e1ZH8JDde MK5Bp8GI6OpnoP9iscMQoVdMumZcVXMWiZc7IggEJzNSm3CFmw4MZ3Q8hlK31RCjF/qz n95q3HPmbHLp5jGMvWVle8ok62ZqlODEnqRpESHRR2c2MECUWs4WUp17uR8dk3lkH8+R F+FHqOSE8WCTbALA9xg14G0okmdEL71J0GecOQvW4EkJpQMoMPvisbxvbJBcI2eRrRmY TFLw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.209.97 with SMTP id ml1mr18107770lbc.26.1391973246559; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:14:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:14:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@192.168.1.128> <52F7A6CB.6010109@dcrocker.net> <0C4D2B08E9946CD3AE03FAD2@192.168.1.128> <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:14:06 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: John Curran Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c33242e5eae004f1fe06c6 Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, John C Klensin , Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:14:10 -0000 --001a11c33242e5eae004f1fe06c6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:01 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Feb 9, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker > wrote: > > > Responding but not replying to Dave. > > > > The meta problem as I see it is that the government side come to the > table with concrete technical and institutional proposals rather than a set > of requirements and interests. The technical community then discuss the > technical basis for the proposals and reject them without considering the > interests that are driving them. > > That might be true in some of the interactions, but certainly wasn't the > case when it > comes to the IPv6 Country Internet Registries (CIR) proposal. It > actually led to an > correspondence group within the ITU dedicated to receiving reports of > issues with > the present IPv6 Internet number registry system (i.e. specifically the > concerns that > led to the proposal) After several years with no submissions, the group > was closed; > for the record, it's fairly hard for the technical community to consider > "concerns in the > present system" when the government(s) won't actually state their > interests. Ah now that is a completely different issue. The problem for the ITU is finding a use for the ITU now that the telephone system is obsolete. > > To top it all we have a certain faction that is ideologically opposed to > the very notion of government and another faction that sees the exercise of > what Joe Nye calls crude power (as opposed to soft or smart power) as the > ultimate goal of all political interactions. > > One would think that it wouldn't be difficult for governments to state > some reasoning > (political, technical, or otherwise), particularly in their own > multi-lateral forum, but it > was repeatedly indicated that their preference was to consider the matter > behind > closed doors via political machinations rather than any open expression of > needs > or requirements. > They don't like making their positions public because then the career diplomats are setting failure standards that they can be measured against. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --001a11c33242e5eae004f1fe06c6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:01 PM, John Curran <<= a href=3D"mailto:jcurran@istaff.org" target=3D"_blank">jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:
On Feb 9, 2014, at 12:52 PM,= Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.= com> wrote:

> Responding but not replying to Dave.
>
> The meta problem as I see it is that the government side come to the t= able with concrete technical and institutional proposals rather than a set = of requirements and interests. The technical community then discuss the tec= hnical basis for the proposals and reject them without considering the inte= rests that are driving them.

That might be true in some of the interactions, but certainly wasn= 9;t the case when it
comes to the IPv6 Country Internet Registries (CIR) proposal. =A0 It actual= ly led to an
correspondence group within the ITU dedicated to receiving reports of issue= s with
the present IPv6 Internet number registry system (i.e. specifically the con= cerns that
led to the proposal) =A0After several years with no submissions, the group = was closed;
for the record, it's fairly hard for the technical community to conside= r "concerns in the
present system" when the government(s) won't actually state their = interests.

Ah now that is a completely diff= erent issue. The problem for the ITU is finding a use for the ITU now that = the telephone system is obsolete.


=A0
=
> To top it all we have a certain faction that is ideologically opposed = to the very notion of government and another faction that sees the exercise= of what Joe Nye calls crude power (as opposed to soft or smart power) as t= he ultimate goal of all political interactions.

One would think that it wouldn't be difficult for governments to = state some reasoning
(political, technical, or otherwise), particularly in their own multi-later= al forum, but it
was repeatedly indicated that their preference was to consider the matter b= ehind
closed doors via political machinations rather than any open expression of = needs
or requirements.

They don't like ma= king their positions public because then the career diplomats are setting f= ailure standards that they can be measured against.

=A0
--
Website: htt= p://hallambaker.com/
--001a11c33242e5eae004f1fe06c6-- From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Sun Feb 9 11:16:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BEC1A03E6 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:16:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zZlfrSMRz2c7 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:16:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940971A019E for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:16:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id rd3so5281082pab.2 for ; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:16:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ubDY861fAr4zrderCtFT4+5thRQ3+XCfVRsVrJ/LHXQ=; b=o49T1+kDYHzAJOLHYjO2L6xRby7KpAHNvRteEnZpP7AN7EWQOIYRUY3UWCCwouwJnu mMhM+EJtmOGqL8tXdAyQ0bIIdSiDUHSTt4trd/6EmHyNbvsHO8JOtlZUBTOos54Iob6P DJB70myITaQT4PpzgYb3rqKBqTHTNNrwHcLHszwoZ6GkF2s2pib8z8GnunL2BSeSjk/7 VjWHjD49EAi6M9HlcFN/JY9DbPWB548o8soVfLkoelmjlv0xwyBgLvN42iK+PY2AC6SL tLn8Flqbltj7zqm/EdxUVI/OInEuBR1zRBaNsjPEfYmLk4/GiNMbgON7kWQJTqmqlg5w d4JA== X-Received: by 10.66.4.130 with SMTP id k2mr4569100pak.97.1391973364524; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:16:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.23] (82.197.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.197.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id sy2sm34755858pbc.28.2014.02.09.11.16.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:16:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52F7D3EB.1030706@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:15:55 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phillip Hallam-Baker References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <7D100758-9DDC-4D6E-B8B9-FACCF7CD36FA@istaff.org> <52F769BC.6000407@frobbit.se> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: John Curran , John R Levine , internetgovtech@iab.org, =?UTF-8?B?UGF0cmlrIEbDpGx0c3Ryw7Zt?= Subject: [Internetgovtech] Let's be specific X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:16:06 -0000 On 10/02/2014 02:31, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Patrik F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m wrote: >=20 >> On 2014-02-08 18:40, John Curran wrote: >>> If every country becomes a registry authority >> First of all, there is no definition of "country" that is even close t= o >> be detailed enough to even start this discussion. >> >=20 > That is a silly argument to be making to diplomats. They have an existi= ng > procedure for deciding what a country is for purposes of allocating > spectrum and orbit slots. Let's be very specific: who gets the /32 allocation for Taiwan? It's an incredibly perilous road to go down, and I speak as one of the many people who has tried and failed to persuade Zhao Houlin that it's a technical dead end. It is not a technical proposal. Brian From hallam@gmail.com Sun Feb 9 11:24:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73EA1A055A for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:24:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jMjQ6mya8f78 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:24:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com (mail-la0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AAB01A0545 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:24:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ec20so4124040lab.37 for ; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:24:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mSTD877cLW03VH1kSsVor6Nd/J3CYXYSbNCqAk4mfqg=; b=F6/PeJvXHXmQgjL1pywtN6AFd75r/k/3OhRKQdZhYTSmi+0hJ/14mm48bWwgE8sZRf u0Kgo7wuluqqau6eSoMnQTnXrFrtVMtqLGYF2oGwa12zoFfzCcz07KZVZPlLr0cv8G7J 4iv1O3GLMbnOEDwrBbD1tqgtw+lbc8BpFXZhnxg5zcUPTio7PvjwEnS9pmNpZ6Q/QtqZ Ds2RzEyqyV5l/qN6QOuMWb/2B5JowJO8hvz/ohda03qbbYBeVYCkHCjWlcWORFsmsIre vlpdwTYhuuxvHai2k1qloGAVEjTqwmyi3Qg3Y27ZbXMsNWT+KuaMvLEisBj2jN3/T7wk Tfpw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.205.5 with SMTP id lc5mr2366859lbc.40.1391973896810; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:24:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:24:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52F7D3EB.1030706@gmail.com> References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <7D100758-9DDC-4D6E-B8B9-FACCF7CD36FA@istaff.org> <52F769BC.6000407@frobbit.se> <52F7D3EB.1030706@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:24:56 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: Brian E Carpenter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3ce32a7f5a904f1fe2d59 Cc: John Curran , John R Levine , internetgovtech@iab.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Let's be specific X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:25:00 -0000 --001a11c3ce32a7f5a904f1fe2d59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/02/2014 02:31, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m w= rote: > > > >> On 2014-02-08 18:40, John Curran wrote: > >>> If every country becomes a registry authority > >> First of all, there is no definition of "country" that is even close t= o > >> be detailed enough to even start this discussion. > >> > > > > That is a silly argument to be making to diplomats. They have an existi= ng > > procedure for deciding what a country is for purposes of allocating > > spectrum and orbit slots. > > Let's be very specific: who gets the /32 allocation for Taiwan? > Same government that decided who would use the Taiwan international dialing code. This has come up before. > It's an incredibly perilous road to go down, and I speak as one > of the many people who has tried and failed to persuade Zhao Houlin > that it's a technical dead end. It is not a technical proposal. > You keep repeating the original assertion but there isn't any substance to the argument. --=20 Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --001a11c3ce32a7f5a904f1fe2d59 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian= .e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/02/2014 02:31, Phillip Hallam-Baker wr= ote:
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-02-08 18:40, John Curran wrote:
>>> If every country becomes a registry authority
>> First of all, there is no definition of "country" that i= s even close to
>> be detailed enough to even start this discussion.
>>
>
> That is a silly argument to be making to diplomats. They have an exist= ing
> procedure for deciding what a country is for purposes of allocating > spectrum and orbit slots.

Let's be very specific: who gets the /32 allocation for Taiwan?

Same government that decided who would use the= Taiwan international dialing code. This has come up before.
=A0
It's an incredibly perilous road to go down, and I speak as one
of the many people who has tried and failed to persuade Zhao Houlin
that it's a technical dead end. It is not a technical proposal.

=A0You keep repeating the original assertion b= ut there isn't any substance to the argument.


--
Website: http://h= allambaker.com/
--001a11c3ce32a7f5a904f1fe2d59-- From lear@cisco.com Sun Feb 9 11:33:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D081A0545 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:33:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.704 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XiMkqk5yTfKH for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:33:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.203.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF5F1A0443 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:33:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2138; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391974413; x=1393184013; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iqQsY8FIms3Et2pQ1COgwDp/m4l8XP/KTSeXTzeE2WQ=; b=iTNs5n0DEpL6zylEj448du4OFX+F2AUxLQHQ6xD6d6cWd9I86dSXPnUK moXqnv1mERu44Nglkq08r13kTCFVCnIM9k8F918BVXemUSHvKxXKAKbFF wQxDndClCfps1UsG4JMTC2Zj/4Dh9ObzmLRu4ar26ZJJNBTBcHbQ4pCNg 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AikFAMvW91KQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABZgwyEELxAgQYWdIIlAQEBBCNVEQsYAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECASsaBwwIAQGIAadyoDcXgSmNW4JvgUkBA5grkiGDLjs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,813,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="71469" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2014 19:33:32 +0000 Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.202.234]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s19JXTGq014325 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 9 Feb 2014 19:33:30 GMT Message-ID: <52F7D80B.7030201@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:33:31 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, internetgovtech@iab.org References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@192.168.1.128> <52F7A6CB.6010109@dcrocker.net> <0C4D2B08E9946CD3AE03FAD2@192.168.1.128> <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> <52F7CC6A.3000400@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <52F7CC6A.3000400@dcrocker.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:33:32 -0000 On 2/9/14, 7:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > It can make sense of the IETF to take a set of detailed proposals and > abstract from them the functional requirements, to facilitate analysis > of an existing proposal or even to try to formulate a better proposal. > > It does not make sense for the IETF to consider the "interests" of > other groups. Both of these statements above are true, but there is a bit of a spectrum in between. As a case and point, discussion about addressing models probably more immediately impacts the RIR than, say, the IETF. But the IAB has commented on addressing models precisely because they can have impact on scaling characteristics of the Internet. We can find other alignment as well. Now, turning to your earlier ALL CAPITALS request, I'm just one member of the IAB, but I note that there are a series of meetings involving Internet governance that are coming up, and Sally did an excellent presentation in Berlin to explain most of them. The she didn't explain, because it wasn't there to explain, was a meeting in Brazil that will be taking place in April. It will have ramifications for other fora. The purpose of that meeting is to discuss both principles for Internet governance and a roadmap for furthering what is agreed. It's a rather open agenda, as these things tend to be. It is a foregone conclusion that IANA will come up in some way shape or form. It is also the case that other topics will arise that have architectural impact. My inclination is that we should send people, if for no other reason, than to provide a perspective of why things are, in case debates come up on that front. It might also be possible to explain why some proposals carry with them certain risks, but as Avri says, there is often no bright line when it comes to this arena. That doesn't mean we should jump into every discussion. This list has mentioned a few that I don't think I would touch. Definitions of countries, pricing models, and sanctions regimes jump to the front of the queue of things that the IETF probably oughtn't engage on. Eliot From dhc@dcrocker.net Sun Feb 9 11:44:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCFB1A0700 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:44:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dFB8JFGdb0Gj for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:44:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373C61A0701 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:44:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s19Ji3hI029853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:44:06 -0800 Message-ID: <52F7DA5C.8030402@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:43:24 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eliot Lear , internetgovtech@iab.org References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@192.168.1.128> <52F7A6CB.6010109@dcrocker.net> <0C4D2B08E9946CD3AE03FAD2@192.168.1.128> <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> <52F7CC6A.3000400@dcrocker.net> <52F7D80B.7030201@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <52F7D80B.7030201@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:44:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:44:16 -0000 On 2/9/2014 11:33 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > On 2/9/14, 7:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > But the IAB has commented on addressing models precisely because they > can have impact on scaling characteristics of the Internet. That's a technical point. (I'm including operational issues within 'technical' for this kind of discussion.) > a meeting in Brazil that will be > taking place in April. It will have ramifications for other fora. > The purpose of that meeting is to discuss both principles for Internet > governance and a roadmap for furthering what is agreed. ... > My inclination is that we should send people, if for no other reason, > than to provide a perspective of why things are, ... > It might also be possible to explain why some proposals > carry with them certain risks Of course. Why they are, what the technical and operational implications are, what is known and not known about technical and operational issues, etc., etc. Technicians speaking on technical issues. > That doesn't mean we should jump into every discussion. This list has > mentioned a few that I don't think I would touch. Definitions of > countries, pricing models, and sanctions regimes jump to the front of > the queue of things that the IETF probably oughtn't engage on. Exactly. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Sun Feb 9 11:53:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6E01A054B for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:53:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qLYN-VFTMSia for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:53:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x235.google.com (mail-pa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF971A03CD for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id lj1so5261722pab.26 for ; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:53:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/F20BweRLWoRVuOzGyjNs4OrFAh+sHsGqqKJn2NfZFM=; b=yvtwWp/rAVoZtwh5Epg+/K+HWFbxvqn21ctKio4K+3yIlSXn5DwE1aqUF+I7x497RT U/kJbSinxemw4tzyll94DBaCqQkQ0YWN8g+rBAusjSrWiYeLHGYzU9JWj0wOgt46ozTX CqAU25ApCEi4MxbGYdF3XrmPiG9OmXEUxQu+KGRDSZflwOf/WCY2M7WK+bKO6oZ8Bf4p DbJUS/ZDK58uChkfLUPWkV9Jsi2l6ylJI1NapVOnrOEduNa9owUPa0vnoJPmLczlA6ud ny79q5zlqrJYrrB2XEIfWX9NyHRru97cEllID2P6pc/LBcsR/lFIFWvbQd/mrW2ZUzz6 FZhQ== X-Received: by 10.66.243.103 with SMTP id wx7mr21378873pac.107.1391975625001; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:53:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.23] (82.197.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.197.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id rb6sm34910690pbb.41.2014.02.09.11.53.42 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:53:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52F7DCC4.7020605@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:53:40 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phillip Hallam-Baker References: <52F5809F.6080800@gih.com> <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <7D100758-9DDC-4D6E-B8B9-FACCF7CD36FA@istaff.org> <52F769BC.6000407@frobbit.se> <52F7D3EB.1030706@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: John Curran , John R Levine , internetgovtech@iab.org, =?UTF-8?B?UGF0cmlrIEbDpGx0c3Ryw7Zt?= Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Let's be specific X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 19:53:46 -0000 On 10/02/2014 08:24, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 >> On 10/02/2014 02:31, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Patrik F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m wrote: >>> >>>> On 2014-02-08 18:40, John Curran wrote: >>>>> If every country becomes a registry authority >>>> First of all, there is no definition of "country" that is even close= to >>>> be detailed enough to even start this discussion. >>>> >>> That is a silly argument to be making to diplomats. They have an exis= ting >>> procedure for deciding what a country is for purposes of allocating >>> spectrum and orbit slots. >> Let's be very specific: who gets the /32 allocation for Taiwan? >> >=20 > Same government that decided who would use the Taiwan international dia= ling > code. This has come up before. >=20 >=20 >> It's an incredibly perilous road to go down, and I speak as one >> of the many people who has tried and failed to persuade Zhao Houlin >> that it's a technical dead end. It is not a technical proposal. >> >=20 > You keep repeating the original assertion but there isn't any substanc= e to > the argument. Do you know what the phrase "toxic waste" means in the BGP-4 context? A major goal of IPv6 has always been to prevent the rise of a toxic waste= dump. A good way to create a toxic waste dump is to assign prefixes in any other way than to ISPs. https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/sqlaw.pdf Brian From jcurran@istaff.org Sun Feb 9 12:11:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0886F1A054C for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:11:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ThW6Dhor-wY2 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:11:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA4B1A018C for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:11:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from 50-201-180-2-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([50.201.180.2] helo=[10.10.5.113]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WCaj7-0007lA-34; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:11:41 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 50.201.180.2 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/l+lGyYDzmdjUMbKkqjBvw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: John Curran In-Reply-To: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 15:11:36 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <50BA2281-6E59-4572-B77C-379D40EF046A@istaff.org> References: <52F3784D.8020505@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Discussion of principles for governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 20:11:45 -0000 > On Feb 6, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >=20 > In the area of Internet governance what are the important principles = you > believe in? =20 Following Dave's admonition, I'm going to try to answer Eliot's original=20= question (at a macro-level) by first considering the overall principles=20= applicable to IETF efforts which might have "governance" implications. At this level, I'm treating the IETF singular entity but clearly there is some equally important discussion about how these principles affect=20= various aspects of the IETF itself (e.g. what falls to the IAB vs IESG,=20= IASA, IAOC, plenary, etc.) Also, I've spent probably more time on the protocol/registry foundational aspects then needed, but getting some agreement on these underlying assumptions may prove necessary for a=20 shared view of the IETF's role in the Internet ecosystem, particularly when it comes to likely governmental interactions. So, here's a rough draft of basic principles behind for IETF work, and=20= some of the corollaries which might intersection traditional governance.=20= (these are obviously just my own views, free to ignore or express your=20= own set and therefore different corollaries) -=20 1) The IETF develops Internet protocol standards to facilitate global communications among the voluntary users of these protocols - 1a) Users of these protocols include both the vendors who implement=20= them and the customers who use these implementations=20 1b) These standards have specifications (as elaborated in the RFC=20 series) and interoperability is facilitated by implementation=20 and usage in conformance with the specifications 1c) Specifications should be made widely and freely available to the extent possible, to encourage usage in conformance with the specifications. 2) Some protocols include specification of parameter fields which can take on a range of values; these ranges are referred to registries. Interoperability is facilitated having commonly agreed values in=20 each protocol parameter registry -=20 2a) Just as with the specifications themselves, the users of these=20 registries include both the vendors who implement protocols and=20= the customers who use the implementations. 2b) Interoperability is facilitated by having registries implemented and used in conformance with the protocol specifications. 2c) Access to registries should be widely and freely available to=20 the extent possible, to encourage protocol usage in conformance=20= with the specifications. 2d) Some protocol parameters are "general use", and registry values assigned upon request to specific parties in accordance with the=20= registry policy. Such assignments are generally unique in = nature,=20 i.e. only one party is associated with each general-purpose=20 registry entry. =20 2e) Coordination (or automation) is necessary to provide uniqueness=20= of assignments in each registry, but it is particularly important in the general purpose registries given the large number of=20 assignments involved. Several of the general purpose registries=20= (DNS, IPv4, IPv6, ASNs) have been delegated to parties external=20= to the IETF which are believed to be reasonably representative=20 of the communities dependent upon those registries. 2f) Due to protocol specifications, some registries have interactions=20= with one another (e.g. IPv4 assignments and in-addr.arpa DNS = space) and require coordination of registry activities as a result. 3) The remarkable success of the Internet has resulted in it serving a fundamental role in economic and social development; therefore, the=20= ability of a given community (or government) to "voluntarily" decline to make use of Internet standards and registries is actually rather=20= limited -=20 3a) The implied requirement to make use of Internet standards and=20 registries in order to achieve the economic and social benefits of the Internet only reinforces the need for development = processes which are open to all interested parties, as well as the = importance of transparency in decision making. 3b) Outcomes which are based on factors other than technical merit may result in social, political, or economic tradeoffs being integrated into the specifications or registry policies, and=20 are best done based on extremely widely held norms and values. 3c) To the extent that the IETF does decide to embed a particular=20 social or economic tradeoff in a specification beyond reasons of technical necessity, it should do so in an explicit manner and based on widespread endorsement by the IETF community. 3d) Particular care in Internet coordination should be paid to=20 expressions of public policy principles which are widely held by many governments (e.g. EU's personal data privacy directive),=20= as these can be more readily considered to avoid specifications=20= or registry policy which might be in conflict in a wide region = and=20 thus contrary to the goal of facilitating global communications. 3e) Mechanisms should be provided for promoting high-level awareness=20= to all interested parties (including governments and other=20 stakeholders such as civil society) of specification or registry=20= policy development which has significant potential for = incorporating =20 public policy tradeoffs in the final specifications or registry = policy. This last principle and its corollaries (3 & 3a-3e) are a distinguishing=20= factor between the IETF and simply any other technical standards body... i.e. with global and pervasive deployment of the IETF's specifications = must=20 also come a level of awareness of its potential (intentionally and = otherwise) of social and economic impact as a result of its efforts. This has been more visible in the DNS and IP registry communities, but should probably be explicitly discussed in the IETF so that a common understanding can = be reached on the IETF's role in the Internet ecosystem, and particularly = with=20 respect to governmental interactions since governments are now coming to=20= similar realization about the Internet ecosystem (incl IETF) and its = potential. /John Disclaimers: My views alone. There is likely a key for you which will = make this email message disappear; if this message causes = distress,=20 please know that was not my intent and delete it = immediately. :-) From masinter@adobe.com Sun Feb 9 14:26:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5F01A0612 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:26:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6irKPi_t3UFV for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0236.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167B61A04CA for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:26:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.141.91.21) by BL2PR02MB306.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.141.91.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.873.15; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 22:26:32 +0000 Received: from BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.91.21]) by BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.91.21]) with mapi id 15.00.0873.009; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 22:26:32 +0000 From: Larry Masinter To: John Curran Thread-Topic: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour Thread-Index: AQHPJPPh5wCABpwAgEStAUwwPPl6sZqs4EmAgAA2uYCAABrAK4AAA9UAgAATT4CAADkqyA== Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 22:26:32 +0000 Message-ID: <335DE61E-0ACF-4347-A028-7F97211B5353@adobe.com> References: <20140208173103.26373.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D6C6AB29538018B017B6D60@192.168.1.128> <52F7A6CB.6010109@dcrocker.net> <0C4D2B08E9946CD3AE03FAD2@192.168.1.128> <52F7BCB8.3070401@dcrocker.net> , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [50.0.154.68] x-forefront-prvs: 011787B9DD x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019001)(6009001)(199002)(189002)(53806001)(76482001)(46102001)(47446002)(54356001)(81542001)(94316002)(31966008)(51856001)(92726001)(94946001)(74502001)(82746002)(69226001)(56776001)(54316002)(92566001)(76786001)(76796001)(83322001)(85852003)(83072002)(86362001)(80976001)(95416001)(81342001)(33656001)(85306002)(93516002)(90146001)(81816001)(74662001)(81686001)(56816005)(93136001)(74876001)(74706001)(16236675002)(83716003)(87936001)(2656002)(59766001)(4396001)(77982001)(74366001)(65816001)(80022001)(66066001)(87266001)(36756003)(47976001)(47736001)(49866001)(50986001)(79102001)(63696002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR02MB306; H:BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:50.0.154.68; FPR:7854F48C.9FFE6CCB.75D0D17A.C8AB1039.200D6; InfoNoRecordsA:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_335DE61E0ACF4347A0287F97211B5353adobecom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: adobe.com Cc: John C Klensin , "internetgovtech@iab.org" , Phillip Hallam-Baker , Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] the WCIT detour X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 22:26:37 -0000 --_000_335DE61E0ACF4347A0287F97211B5353adobecom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would like to propose a work plan that surveys the areas of interaction b= etween technology and governance, starting from the documents I posted. My hope is that doing so is appropriate for the IETF and that the result wo= uld be useful to several communities, although I'm sure there are additiona= l requirements. --_000_335DE61E0ACF4347A0287F97211B5353adobecom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would like to propose a work plan that surveys th= e areas of interaction between technology and governance, starting from the= documents I posted. 

My hope is that doing so is appropriate for the IETF and that the resu= lt would be useful to several communities, although I'm sure there are addi= tional requirements.
--_000_335DE61E0ACF4347A0287F97211B5353adobecom_-- From gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 02:49:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577481A0879 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:49:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qoEV_MmQLcHn for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:49:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D44A1A07A3 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:49:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id e4so6685517wiv.11 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:49:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date :to:mime-version; bh=P8cKNFocPKlT+wlY9WSEyKrZi1XlECTR89hSBJIob78=; b=ZvL5DWuJA+9qrbnXxpzuskq79sJNOx8Aj9bKuTDtWG9pnRI7VNisKQIdilCPc2hcYl 041bCFpX2j1iV13heAHvny5ot+RkpUhAYcuydWldfEKcJH23rRqBqro248rDpHT6hXy2 S+WjeFSoTJ+FiTNvvqKnWFwOqFH6m+HisJ0PHlnGbvuCVK6W9hAOSGIAaE86lMaryKV6 onY3BroSJGZ+YMeQXMrvWsIQjUGF9hGREin7FVCQT73lxCT7n0w9PW3etlvm7Yaaeofx FQSGEvDoJNnPWI4nl4eb+hJxBEGUh+aLkIQvj2Urv46U5nK5M+g8VhrixwsASsePFR+m tG6w== X-Received: by 10.194.174.197 with SMTP id bu5mr141498wjc.71.1392202180807; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:49:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (89-157-44-128.rev.auchanbox.fr. [89.157.44.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id jw4sm51222181wjc.20.2014.02.12.02.49.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:49:40 -0800 (PST) From: Gordon Lennox Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3A5CD97B-0057-4DBD-BA06-C4BF02A6F49B@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:49:39 +0100 To: internetgovtech@iab.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Subject: [Internetgovtech] European Commission - Internet Governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:49:44 -0000 Commission Europ=E9enne - IP/14/142 12/02/2014 Commission to pursue role as honest broker in future global negotiations = on Internet Governance In the wake of large-scale Internet surveillance and reduced trust in = the internet, the European Commission today proposes a key reform to the = way the Internet is managed and run. The proposal calls for more = transparent, accountable and inclusive governance. Commission Vice-President Neelie Kroes said: "The next two years will be = critical in redrawing the global map of Internet governance. Europe must = contribute to a credible way forward for global internet governance. = Europe must play a strong role in defining what the net of the future = looks like.=94 The Commission is committed to an internet that continues to serve = fundamental freedoms and human rights, Kroes noted: =93Our fundamental = freedoms and human rights are not negotiable. They must be protected = online.=94 .... http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm From jari.arkko@piuha.net Wed Feb 12 11:37:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23641A0622 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:37:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rZw8_D4n4J7E for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:37:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF811A0502 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:37:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBA52CED0; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:37:13 +0200 (EET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KSQmYTISTxN8; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:37:13 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4EAD2CC48; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:37:12 +0200 (EET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <3A5CD97B-0057-4DBD-BA06-C4BF02A6F49B@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:37:12 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8624018A-78A6-4247-82FA-A4D21F01D8AB@piuha.net> References: <3A5CD97B-0057-4DBD-BA06-C4BF02A6F49B@gmail.com> To: Gordon Lennox X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] European Commission - Internet Governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:37:22 -0000 Thanks, Gordon. This is interesting.=20 It is also interesting that they are highlighting not only IANA = globalisation but also strengthening the role of the IGF. And there was = very clear support for multistakeholder model, as opposed to top-down=85 Jari From hallam@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 11:48:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12F61A0683 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:48:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RA3U90pXumDI for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:48:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x233.google.com (mail-lb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38191A0647 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:48:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l4so7355744lbv.24 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:48:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4NVWjYWv1EoEkbNHXXB7VYRSpF/hOpmxgm8Sh8QjQZ8=; b=yX8c4vwtTvL3+wjB4Wq3iOoLtTP+M76Jksve1ay3NXDTQrEO52Y+4wHBSKAO0ARzwy FWZOiV64K+nVHJ3ynv+cGG++VNqv6baWKbBnKuNrm2tOJYxzFOCu97YXM2m6uHOmyzsW 116lqD6RwJABgudpUcOgZtKl6iTIbxpUXOEo544BTW4EQUYqlQc42KtarX3AhA5rfdBE PrHLmjG46txygn0hRfxr+Uni0EWLt31Y0hUfRdmUGJD4USl1+sui1rP1wXOzMAgnJ056 /jexD9bngByUN2dKmQCdEnNxKY57hkbSCL/NO9bKA1EIUY2XrDfmcJwFuuj+K9SjFdPh 9blg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.236.3 with SMTP id uq3mr30888269lbc.14.1392234528242; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:48:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.37.168 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:48:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <8624018A-78A6-4247-82FA-A4D21F01D8AB@piuha.net> References: <3A5CD97B-0057-4DBD-BA06-C4BF02A6F49B@gmail.com> <8624018A-78A6-4247-82FA-A4D21F01D8AB@piuha.net> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:48:48 -0500 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: Jari Arkko Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c320ec7ffeee04f23adc02 Cc: Gordon Lennox , internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] European Commission - Internet Governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 19:48:56 -0000 --001a11c320ec7ffeee04f23adc02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Thanks, Gordon. This is interesting. > > It is also interesting that they are highlighting not only IANA > globalisation but also strengthening the role of the IGF. And there was > very clear support for multistakeholder model, as opposed to top-down... > > Jari I don't like the multi-steak-holder terminology or the multi-stake one either. Makes me think of those bitcoin miners chasing me with pitchforks. The way I see the model is that the Internet has a degree of stability despite the rapid growth and applications layer innovation. There must therefore be feedback loops. And there are in fact multiple loops and layers. The general public who use the Internet know when it does not work or when it doesn't let them see pictures of cats or videos. But they tell their ISPs and their ISPs want to keep them buying the service which typically means keeping them happy. The IETF is one of the feedback loops that takes in input from the technically astute Internet users and delivers it to the providers of standards based Internet technologies. Some of the technically astute users are in turn informed by others who are directly or indirectly responding to requirements from users. Internet Governance is thus only a government concern for most industrial countries to the extent that government attention is urgently needed. Which means an economic, security or sovereignty issue might arise. Such governments have more than enough work to do controlling risks they need to control to go looking for extra ones. And then there are the governments that can't cope with the idea that there might be a critical infrastructure not under direct government control and interpret that situation as meaning that the Internet is "a failed state". -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --001a11c320ec7ffeee04f23adc02 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
Thanks, Gordon. This is interesting.

It is also interesting that they are highlighting not only IANA globalisati= on but also strengthening the role of the IGF. And there was very clear sup= port for multistakeholder model, as opposed to top-down…

Jari

I don't like the mul= ti-steak-holder terminology or the multi-stake one either. Makes me think o= f those bitcoin miners chasing me with pitchforks.

The way I see the model is that the Internet has a degree of stability= despite the rapid growth and applications layer innovation. There must the= refore be feedback loops. And there are in fact multiple loops and layers.<= /div>

The general public who use the Internet know when it do= es not work or when it doesn't let them see pictures of cats or videos.= But they tell their ISPs and their ISPs want to keep them buying the servi= ce which typically means keeping them happy.

The IETF is one of the feedback loops that takes in inp= ut from the technically astute Internet users and delivers it to the provid= ers of standards based Internet technologies. Some of the technically astut= e users are in turn informed by others who are directly or indirectly respo= nding to requirements from users.


--001a11c320ec7ffeee04f23adc02-- From gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 12:25:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B504A1A06C4 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:25:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8yZ8Pr8odvEq for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:25:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7D71A06C9 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:25:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id f8so7562331wiw.3 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:25:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=oIEdgP6bX4scrqgsmfQ1NoYae1YTbOXwRGL3tTQYaPI=; b=dsoRL5tTpqP8g5xY42tXq7CxLycHqXk8w2jNhS02JAMk1L/Vds5zX9d1f1HKA3/LPU rJTIu+BSP6Hyx/kZ8npzuMCPHDTyt3GIx3htxjwolT4jh6Gy4Fd115QbExpEOMI+vTjL vzs4xZzye809CUqapW/npjrjqiMFkyPDQaDgWbsBX75mumHcNRDZLyWfNOHsTf3U2Sp/ dPMTxlvLHZs9fUM64YoXbwCGr2CriB4W96VD4rXWhyNn6uH2v2DxWohm7t8mwqWs7/OZ 8owHjah3pS6/d5WKBG85FzOEcxdTeiyneOdzZ4tnW5K4ynVsFtN236+9FElvT2wWXjXw TWow== X-Received: by 10.180.35.36 with SMTP id e4mr3596070wij.8.1392236727760; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:25:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([89.157.44.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id jw4sm55177887wjc.20.2014.02.12.12.25.26 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:25:27 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Gordon Lennox In-Reply-To: <8624018A-78A6-4247-82FA-A4D21F01D8AB@piuha.net> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:25:25 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <952481DD-F228-4366-84FF-68C941358077@gmail.com> References: <3A5CD97B-0057-4DBD-BA06-C4BF02A6F49B@gmail.com> <8624018A-78A6-4247-82FA-A4D21F01D8AB@piuha.net> To: Jari Arkko X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] European Commission - Internet Governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:25:37 -0000 You may also want to look at the ETNO take - see their web-site.=20 Remarkably prompt! Gordon On 12 Feb, 2014, at 20:37, Jari Arkko wrote: > Thanks, Gordon. This is interesting.=20 >=20 > It is also interesting that they are highlighting not only IANA = globalisation but also strengthening the role of the IGF. And there was = very clear support for multistakeholder model, as opposed to top-down=85 >=20 > Jari >=20 From housley@vigilsec.com Wed Feb 12 12:27:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A8B1A06BC for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:27:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vcec8xIU5ccC for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:27:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765A61A04C6 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:27:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABECF9A4302 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:27:34 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xqQh5pnmRwTA for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:27:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.20.40.95] (unknown [12.189.153.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17639A42F4 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:27:13 -0500 (EST) From: Russ Housley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-519--534716393 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:27:07 -0500 References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> To: internetgovtech@iab.org Message-Id: <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Subject: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:27:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail-519--534716393 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii FYI... > Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and = Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on the = European Commission statement on Internet governance: > =20 > The U.S. government welcomes the strong and continued commitment of = the European Commission to the multistakeholder model of Internet = governance. We will work with the Commission and other Internet = stakeholders to make multistakeholder governance more inclusive, = especially to support the engagement of countries in the developing = world. We have long encouraged the further globalization of ICANN as = reflected in our work the last five years to improve the accountability = and transparency of ICANN to all nations and stakeholders. --Apple-Mail-519--534716393 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
FYI...

Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on the European Commission statement on Internet governance:
 
The U.S. government welcomes the strong and continued commitment of the European Commission to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.  We will work with the Commission and other Internet stakeholders to make multistakeholder governance more inclusive, especially to support the engagement of countries in the developing world.  We have long encouraged the further globalization of ICANN as reflected in our work the last five years to improve the accountability and transparency of ICANN to all nations and stakeholders.

--Apple-Mail-519--534716393-- From gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 12:50:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015DE1A05E6 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:50:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HBTYv1__xEXA for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:50:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8FE1A0688 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:50:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id q58so6400762wes.7 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:50:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=Yl4YA/hVFSPmmlww1IMlYPzaZwVOmx81gSi1Y2tJT+Y=; b=u0qL5wUIbzGPgHIU0xN3Aec+adEgs2X2W+hiQoCBSSI9l3DsKqNlo/XMLn7VLcYm0O Wve/GdeEu2XFmxwXKUXq80RQtnLz/ehNO2qcttdr/sKY9EfkZsMqkOEbjhJprzKJMUxQ DyAzJSQf0DRBPE5gmdls0JSIBNynM5DHAVX1quJBWCGie4tbsM+esL9amqNlG0wunGTw jtbAOa5DQVQrFCvpQOXgmBceBxCPxVFSGPRKWu+h2fwNWB5U/RZZXxAmnulUVsmB/90K fL96c0KqfsPGYWDMPbGQbV51Cqb7VmlGWBBqGhODZVk5vaBM99kYCJMGuPH422Ncxp4x Llxg== X-Received: by 10.180.87.232 with SMTP id bb8mr3751343wib.48.1392238237155; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:50:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([89.157.44.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fm3sm8536929wib.8.2014.02.12.12.50.35 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:50:36 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_83434786-2698-48BF-88DD-20B278C98C8D" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Gordon Lennox In-Reply-To: <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:50:32 +0100 Message-Id: <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> To: Russ Housley X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:50:42 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_83434786-2698-48BF-88DD-20B278C98C8D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Yes.=20 = http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe-wants-less-us-power-over-intern= et/2014/02/12/7e231bde-9409-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html A good piece. But I would suggest caution about taking certain phrases at their common = reading. What do other people really mean by internationalisation or = globalisation? =20 Before and elsewhere a lot of people presumed there was agreement about = "enhanced cooperation". But this was also a standard piece of EU jargon = which referred to a group of member states, nation states, getting = together to achieve certain goals. = http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/enhanced_cooperation_en.ht= m But as both the US and ETNO are doing, it is part of the game to try and = impose your preferred interpretation early! Gordon On 12 Feb, 2014, at 21:27, Russ Housley wrote: > FYI.. >=20 >> Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and = Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on the = European Commission statement on Internet governance: >> =20 >> The U.S. government welcomes the strong and continued commitment of = the European Commission to the multistakeholder model of Internet = governance. We will work with the Commission and other Internet = stakeholders to make multistakeholder governance more inclusive, = especially to support the engagement of countries in the developing = world. We have long encouraged the further globalization of ICANN as = reflected in our work the last five years to improve the accountability = and transparency of ICANN to all nations and stakeholders. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech --Apple-Mail=_83434786-2698-48BF-88DD-20B278C98C8D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii htt= p://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe-wants-less-us-power-over-internet/= 2014/02/12/7e231bde-9409-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html
<= br>
A good piece.

But I would suggest = caution about taking certain phrases at their common reading. What do = other people really mean by internationalisation or globalisation? =  

Before and elsewhere a lot of people = presumed there was agreement about "enhanced cooperation". But this was = also a standard piece of EU jargon which referred to a group of member = states, nation states, getting together to achieve certain = goals.


But as both the US and ETNO = are doing, it is part of the game to try and impose your preferred = interpretation = early!

Gordon


<= div>On 12 Feb, 2014, at 21:27, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> = wrote:

FYI..

Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications = and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on the = European Commission statement on Internet governance:
 
Internetgovtech@iab.org
htt= ps://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech
= --Apple-Mail=_83434786-2698-48BF-88DD-20B278C98C8D-- From gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 12:51:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFC51A0665 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:51:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id omfGA4zR2oqZ for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:51:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x22a.google.com (mail-we0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A55B1A05E6 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:51:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w62so6607485wes.29 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:51:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=fIu3yq8qIgwI5tW04FE72nPSv858xV3pjMS+s/FZFuY=; b=vh1yNKOL3bN2D9ZyKhdvDK2sSDelFi02yxCSiiPkybJ4kwrd7ZqslX1L2XR8UZ1EI7 U2XhMXOqYphuLO++96A+TVCtlDI1AyVlaRDvUSXDtxx9HpxSIfxTmzDK5ubMHubrOpur iLm+p0+QueLfra1YdDjJvtkai8Df4iGWn+y3rJh9TJB2BVlLFEJFc84IZoCjpytxTR7+ U97H/cK24Hqasl4FlAsnlvoQ9EPluyKZHCraAJIL8rEmhcXQQjuD/wIE76Y7jwQBb/2l MObB9hqjD94iMDfxFzG7JOV3HPly8hCn8nxWgnYs3I49S7MDaVSBiG6CS/7iEIsHA8Y1 QxGw== X-Received: by 10.194.185.113 with SMTP id fb17mr3004714wjc.29.1392238293943; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:51:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([89.157.44.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fm3sm8536929wib.8.2014.02.12.12.51.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:51:33 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_90EAFE8F-BBE8-40B3-80B8-33EA6AAA17B6" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Gordon Lennox In-Reply-To: <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:51:07 +0100 Message-Id: <95DB2F5F-AF47-4E00-9508-814D3E4D3BFE@gmail.com> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> To: Russ Housley X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:51:37 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_90EAFE8F-BBE8-40B3-80B8-33EA6AAA17B6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Yes.=20 = http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe-wants-less-us-power-over-intern= et/2014/02/12/7e231bde-9409-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html A good piece. But I would suggest caution about taking certain phrases at their common = reading. What do other people really mean by internationalisation or = globalisation? =20 Before and elsewhere a lot of people presumed there was agreement about = "enhanced cooperation". But this was also a standard piece of EU jargon = which referred to a group of member states, nation states, getting = together to achieve certain goals. = http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/enhanced_cooperation_en.ht= m But as both the US and ETNO are doing, it is part of the game to try and = impose your preferred interpretation early! Gordon On 12 Feb, 2014, at 21:27, Russ Housley wrote: > FYI.. >=20 >> Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and = Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on the = European Commission statement on Internet governance: >> =20 >> The U.S. government welcomes the strong and continued commitment of = the European Commission to the multistakeholder model of Internet = governance. We will work with the Commission and other Internet = stakeholders to make multistakeholder governance more inclusive, = especially to support the engagement of countries in the developing = world. We have long encouraged the further globalization of ICANN as = reflected in our work the last five years to improve the accountability = and transparency of ICANN to all nations and stakeholders. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech --Apple-Mail=_90EAFE8F-BBE8-40B3-80B8-33EA6AAA17B6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii htt= p://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe-wants-less-us-power-over-internet/= 2014/02/12/7e231bde-9409-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html
<= br>
A good piece.

But I would suggest = caution about taking certain phrases at their common reading. What do = other people really mean by internationalisation or globalisation? =  

Before and elsewhere a lot of people = presumed there was agreement about "enhanced cooperation". But this was = also a standard piece of EU jargon which referred to a group of member = states, nation states, getting together to achieve certain = goals.


But as both the US and ETNO = are doing, it is part of the game to try and impose your preferred = interpretation = early!

Gordon


<= div>On 12 Feb, 2014, at 21:27, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> = wrote:

FYI..

Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications = and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on the = European Commission statement on Internet governance:

= --Apple-Mail=_90EAFE8F-BBE8-40B3-80B8-33EA6AAA17B6-- From housley@vigilsec.com Wed Feb 12 12:53:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0361A06F8 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:53:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kviGUHiifM5z for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:53:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6A31A06ED for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:53:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBAD9A4302; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:53:28 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yoTbWYcaSP2n; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:53:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.20.40.95] (unknown [12.189.153.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4449A42C5; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:53:07 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-526--533163196 From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:53:00 -0500 Message-Id: <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> To: Gordon Lennox X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:53:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail-526--533163196 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii h= ttp://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id= =3D4453 I find this document very interesting, especially page 5. Russ On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Yes.=20 >=20 > = http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe-wants-less-us-power-over-intern= et/2014/02/12/7e231bde-9409-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html >=20 > A good piece. >=20 > But I would suggest caution about taking certain phrases at their = common reading. What do other people really mean by internationalisation = or globalisation? =20 >=20 > Before and elsewhere a lot of people presumed there was agreement = about "enhanced cooperation". But this was also a standard piece of EU = jargon which referred to a group of member states, nation states, = getting together to achieve certain goals. >=20 > = http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/enhanced_cooperation_en.ht= m >=20 > But as both the US and ETNO are doing, it is part of the game to try = and impose your preferred interpretation early! >=20 > Gordon >=20 >=20 > On 12 Feb, 2014, at 21:27, Russ Housley wrote: >=20 >> FYI.. >>=20 >>> Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and = Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on the = European Commission statement on Internet governance: >>> =20 >>> The U.S. government welcomes the strong and continued commitment of = the European Commission to the multistakeholder model of Internet = governance. We will work with the Commission and other Internet = stakeholders to make multistakeholder governance more inclusive, = especially to support the engagement of countries in the developing = world. We have long encouraged the further globalization of ICANN as = reflected in our work the last five years to improve the accountability = and transparency of ICANN to all nations and stakeholders. >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Internetgovtech mailing list >> Internetgovtech@iab.org >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech --Apple-Mail-526--533163196 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/= document.cfm?doc_id=3D4453

I find this document = very interesting, especially page = 5.

Russ


<= div>On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote:

htt= p://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe-wants-less-us-power-over-internet/= 2014/02/12/7e231bde-9409-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html
<= br>
A good piece.

But I would suggest = caution about taking certain phrases at their common reading. What do = other people really mean by internationalisation or globalisation? =  

Before and elsewhere a lot of people = presumed there was agreement about "enhanced cooperation". But this was = also a standard piece of EU jargon which referred to a group of member = states, nation states, getting together to achieve certain = goals.


But as both the US and ETNO = are doing, it is part of the game to try and impose your preferred = interpretation = early!

Gordon


<= div>On 12 Feb, 2014, at 21:27, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> = wrote:

FYI..

Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications = and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on the = European Commission statement on Internet governance:

_______________________________________________
Internetgovtec= h mailing list
Internetgovtech@iab.org
htt= ps://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech
= --Apple-Mail-526--533163196-- From gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com Wed Feb 12 13:43:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C7A1A0006 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:43:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ACOEuyEFu63g for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:43:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A49B1A0004 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:43:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id u57so6707010wes.27 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:43:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lctszDVwFeDtiOboq1YW0P1B4PRWk6lDJ/qxo6q/qPg=; b=0cNqCoGF5Hd/2RA3hZqvfCGpl3IcYJ9lgUJXKgYqbN8elFTR19s1nciKGw/VTN813g 3FtH+rlsH17AolMbVQbpBw01uvpY9hGOFMrlN0N3U0IruH4WHb+fAs5625goT6lLgUr1 i6lNq2OyF+uoEoi40YWUN1aIVfzApj9555wPex7K7hGogoGaXInzTdNOgaeSLvU/FoD7 b+iNmikuL7Mi4/OugrPM2Tw+99vJ3g4j39AfChgVRqEHdWUja6OVTK3HDjeYlnHsE9H5 oYJXQO4BTi1mX7SZ02sIaxe162tvunuSJINZBV2CS5lLZHTTtUqA8UNSFm8bLlV4K8ds LDeA== X-Received: by 10.194.185.113 with SMTP id fb17mr3152239wjc.29.1392241391256; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:43:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([89.157.44.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gt6sm165862wib.8.2014.02.12.13.43.10 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:43:10 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Gordon Lennox In-Reply-To: <952481DD-F228-4366-84FF-68C941358077@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:43:08 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <782E5F95-07B3-4758-BB3F-98899D66EB10@gmail.com> References: <3A5CD97B-0057-4DBD-BA06-C4BF02A6F49B@gmail.com> <8624018A-78A6-4247-82FA-A4D21F01D8AB@piuha.net> <952481DD-F228-4366-84FF-68C941358077@gmail.com> To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: Jari Arkko Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] European Commission - Internet Governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:43:14 -0000 I was asked where to find the ETNO piece. See their latest press release, in their "press corner". And for more see: = http://etno.be/datas/press_corner/press-releases/2014/PR02_ETNO%20Internet= %20Governance%20time%20to%20evolve_12feb14.pdf Gordon On 12 Feb, 2014, at 21:25, Gordon Lennox = wrote: > You may also want to look at the ETNO take - see their web-site.=20 >=20 > Remarkably prompt! >=20 > Gordon >=20 >=20 > On 12 Feb, 2014, at 20:37, Jari Arkko wrote: >=20 >> Thanks, Gordon. This is interesting.=20 >>=20 >> It is also interesting that they are highlighting not only IANA = globalisation but also strengthening the role of the IGF. And there was = very clear support for multistakeholder model, as opposed to top-down=85 >>=20 >> Jari >>=20 >=20 From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Wed Feb 12 18:49:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34CE31A00B8 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:49:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.939 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QT66jImmkrfY for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:49:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4D01A0028 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:49:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id s1D2nb72030573; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:49:37 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 0273_57bf_7a270f86_9459_11e3_b8a3_001e6722eec2; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:49:37 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81E4BF54F; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:49:36 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <52FC32B2.1070400@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:49:22 +0900 From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gordon Lennox References: <3A5CD97B-0057-4DBD-BA06-C4BF02A6F49B@gmail.com> <8624018A-78A6-4247-82FA-A4D21F01D8AB@piuha.net> <952481DD-F228-4366-84FF-68C941358077@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <952481DD-F228-4366-84FF-68C941358077@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Jari Arkko Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] European Commission - Internet Governance X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 02:49:49 -0000 Hello Gordon, On 2014/02/13 5:25, Gordon Lennox wrote: > You may also want to look at the ETNO take - see their web-site. Can you give a link, please. It took me some time to find out that their=20 website isn't www.etno.org, but www.etno.be, and I haven't been able to=20 figure out yet exactly what on their website you refer to. Thanks and regards, Martin. > Remarkably prompt! > > Gordon > > > On 12 Feb, 2014, at 20:37, Jari Arkko wrote: > >> Thanks, Gordon. This is interesting. >> >> It is also interesting that they are highlighting not only IANA global= isation but also strengthening the role of the IGF. And there was very cl= ear support for multistakeholder model, as opposed to top-down=E2=80=A6 >> >> Jari >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech > From apisan@unam.mx Wed Feb 12 21:41:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6971A00EF for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:41:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.903 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MX=0.535, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HK_NAME_DR=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sCagwGbNxBJG for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:41:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.unam.mx (mail.unam.mx [132.248.10.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A131A00F5 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:41:03 -0800 (PST) From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" To: Russ Housley , Gordon Lennox Thread-Topic: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement Thread-Index: AQHPKDWAAQ+5/u1el0ex0xaKwjmgpZqyfP4AgAAxi84= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:50:56 +0000 Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com>, <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> In-Reply-To: <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> Accept-Language: es-MX, en-US Content-Language: es-MX X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [189.146.180.26] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6FW8EXMBDPunaml_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:41:08 -0000 --_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6FW8EXMBDPunaml_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Russ, and what do you think of pages 7-8, "Technical Norms Shaping the Internet"? Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Qu=EDmica UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE M=C9XICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C= 0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Internetgovtech [internetgovtech-bounces@iab.org] en nombre de Russ = Housley [housley@vigilsec.com] Enviado el: mi=E9rcoles, 12 de febrero de 2014 14:53 Hasta: Gordon Lennox CC: internetgovtech@iab.org Asunto: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commis= sion statement http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id= =3D4453 I find this document very interesting, especially page 5. Russ On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: Yes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe-wants-less-us-power-over-interne= t/2014/02/12/7e231bde-9409-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html A good piece. But I would suggest caution about taking certain phrases at their common re= ading. What do other people really mean by internationalisation or globalis= ation? Before and elsewhere a lot of people presumed there was agreement about "en= hanced cooperation". But this was also a standard piece of EU jargon which = referred to a group of member states, nation states, getting together to ac= hieve certain goals. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/enhanced_cooperation_en.htm But as both the US and ETNO are doing, it is part of the game to try and im= pose your preferred interpretation early! Gordon On 12 Feb, 2014, at 21:27, Russ Housley > wrote: FYI.. Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Informa= tion and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on the European Commissi= on statement on Internet governance: The U.S. government welcomes the strong and continued commitment of the Eur= opean Commission to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. We = will work with the Commission and other Internet stakeholders to make multi= stakeholder governance more inclusive, especially to support the engagement= of countries in the developing world. We have long encouraged the further= globalization of ICANN as reflected in our work the last five years to imp= rove the accountability and transparency of ICANN to all nations and stakeh= olders. _______________________________________________ Internetgovtech mailing list Internetgovtech@iab.org https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech _______________________________________________ Internetgovtech mailing list Internetgovtech@iab.org https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech --_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6FW8EXMBDPunaml_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Russ,

and what do you think of pages 7-8, "Technical Norms Shaping the = Internet"?

Alejandro Pisanty

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Qu=EDmica UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
<= /div>

 

+52-1-554144447= 5 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE M=C9XICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C= 0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .&n= bsp; .  .  .  .  .  . 

Desde: Internetgovtech [internetgovtech-b= ounces@iab.org] en nombre de Russ Housley [housley@vigilsec.com]
Enviado el: mi=E9rcoles, 12 de febrero de 2014 14:53
Hasta: Gordon Lennox
CC: internetgovtech@iab.org
Asunto: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European= Commission statement

http://ec.europa.eu/information_= society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=3D4453

I find this document very interesting, especially page 5.

Russ


On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote:

Yes. 


A good piece.

But I would suggest caution about taking certain phrases at their comm= on reading. What do other people really mean by internationalisation or glo= balisation?  

Before and elsewhere a lot of people presumed there was agreement abou= t "enhanced cooperation". But this was also a standard piece of E= U jargon which referred to a group of member states, nation states, getting= together to achieve certain goals.


But as both the US and ETNO are doing, it is part of the game to try a= nd impose your preferred interpretation early!

Gordon


On 12 Feb, 2014, at 21:27, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

FYI..

Statement of Assistant Secretary = of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawre= nce E. Strickling on the European Commission statement on Internet governance:
 
The U.S. government welcomes the stron= g and continued commitment of the European Commission to the multistakehold= er model of Internet governance.  We will work with the Commission and= other Internet stakeholders to make multistakeholder governance more inclusive, especially to support the engagement of countri= es in the developing world.  We have long encouraged the further globa= lization of ICANN as reflected in our work the last five years to improve t= he accountability and transparency of ICANN to all nations and stakeholders.

_______________________________________________
Internetgovtech mailing list
Internetgovtec= h@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech

_______________________________________________
Internetgovtech mailing list
Internetgovtec= h@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech

--_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6FW8EXMBDPunaml_-- From sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Thu Feb 13 00:26:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311D71A0197 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:26:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vqvUaut2b0Wb for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:26:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x22b.google.com (mail-ig0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9301A0195 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:26:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id uy17so12493514igb.4 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:26:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=+4Og2pWuTdaeK95Joa7D4kIHL3KqYLmsDg7ro51FSS8=; b=qQifdd1Sra0EYM96IL79Vr5BnpR1ytZKjZoJYDunmgLGn3n0ukOv+tqYa6YNNM1fmu muakVUTW+yP6L14XRWneKnoLuNAvlgOkK3EislbHdmcToTmnJLHtw10RWy9yH3XZLm/M AajkvL8hh8ix1vneiFLR7YYSECXMyvbyekz7WGUlcbmNLiOGzf/S7mFGtneIwd3xWy/J BUJN5QqEztyoYQx8H0mBZzqPKiNfTCeWNl8JyoN1wfXa1okuCLAw8ooJeYiknufuiN9v 0N7T55bFKThU2sBVj24/Li9oiJ4O8Pv1F7JaeBKDB4AYYJVef3vH4tXtCnPD+O97aJNc hVhA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.52.65 with SMTP id vl1mr127675icb.86.1392280006463; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:26:46 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.212.9 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:26:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:26:46 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HMzxgvsrhK8w6Z_pJaHJNjuhlQQ Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52e5f413696c704f2457368 Subject: [Internetgovtech] On the Communication from the European Commission - eager to hear your views X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:28:42 -0000 --bcaec52e5f413696c704f2457368 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear all, a few words to introduce myself - I'm Andrea Glorioso (Mr - I'm Italian). I work at the European Commission, in the Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology (sorry for the mouthful - we call it DG CONNECT). I have been one of the persons working on the Communication on Internet Policy and Governance which our former colleague, Gordon Lennox, has kindly shared on this and other lists (they were on my list but Gordon spared me some typing :). I just wanted to say that I'm delighted - honestly - that the Communication seems to have already sparked some discussions on this and other lists. We are very much in listening mode and to the extent possible I'll be glad to react to your points, questions, comments and criticisms. There might be cases in which I will want to double check the position of the European Commission on any particular matter, and this might produce some delay in the exchanges; but I'll do my best to be as quick, open and transparent as possible. Thanks, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --bcaec52e5f413696c704f2457368 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

a few words to introd= uce myself - I'm Andrea Glorioso (Mr - I'm Italian).

I work= at the European Commission, in the Directorate-General for Communication N= etworks, Content and Technology (sorry for the mouthful - we call it DG CON= NECT). I have been one of the persons working on the Communication on Inter= net Policy and Governance which our former colleague, Gordon Lennox, has ki= ndly shared on this and other lists (they were on my list but Gordon spared= me some typing :).

I just wanted to say that I'm delighted - honestly - that the= Communication seems to have already sparked some discussions on this and o= ther lists.

We are very much in listening mode and to the exte= nt possible I'll be glad to react to your points, questions, comments a= nd criticisms. There might be cases in which I will want to double check th= e position of the European Commission on any particular matter, and this mi= ght produce some delay in the exchanges; but I'll do my best to be as q= uick, open and transparent as possible.

Thanks,

Andrea

=
--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myse= lf. Keep it in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.faceb= ook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--bcaec52e5f413696c704f2457368-- From arturo.servin@gmail.com Thu Feb 13 04:08:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9CF31A01FA for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 04:08:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yr8R1VzdwLC7 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 04:07:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x22c.google.com (mail-qc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA20C1A01E9 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 04:07:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c9so17420283qcz.17 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 04:07:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JOi5GzyOvTQx0vSmTdtXvwNViRwtkkVzJLLHO3PyP/s=; b=LNwmPhS5rcPqp9Ux19gtItIEVsKNik7tBfJbHElB9U+uXNGoEsnawslHbUZRhSer+V eKNSFojqDp0hVy+MPtyJs9uTL7MSaauCa4kyGIUd6Q0i5/fdmPTrujr8HBfyeHamy87+ 4iAd+pCyVIcmugBeARahIxLAv+wUTFRn+Hw4vD38J8gI/9nfBJ6nhuaACYBaqYACOXwP Muy75YFy6ppeSgtbBAe5fGxxFo87sMQoflnBiyXKaVEBETWjgc7dMTq4y63fNyFWHIHN N2bGFvKXTHq1B5ivOJdADqlWsB6agkYKauNtsh8e2PmAlF1x/P5AKJvcxEfGM755+8io FktQ== X-Received: by 10.140.51.170 with SMTP id u39mr1545045qga.69.1392293276636; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 04:07:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.87.69 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 04:07:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> From: Arturo Servin Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:07:36 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Gordon Lennox , Russ Housley , "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:08:01 -0000 "An effective multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the internet will be based on efficient mutual interactions between technical and public policy considerations so that technical specifications more systematically take into account public policy concerns= ." It a good goal, and in some way I have seen some IETF efforts in that direction (this list for example). We just need to be careful in not add to much policy to technical discussions or to create a new standard body with that aim. -as On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Russ, > > and what do you think of pages 7-8, "Technical Norms Shaping the Internet= "? > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Qu=EDmica UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE M=C9XICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________ > Desde: Internetgovtech [internetgovtech-bounces@iab.org] en nombre de Rus= s > Housley [housley@vigilsec.com] > Enviado el: mi=E9rcoles, 12 de febrero de 2014 14:53 > Hasta: Gordon Lennox > CC: internetgovtech@iab.org > Asunto: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European > Commission statement > > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_= id=3D4453 > > I find this document very interesting, especially page 5. > > Russ > > > On Feb 12, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > Yes. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe-wants-less-us-power-over-inter= net/2014/02/12/7e231bde-9409-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html > > A good piece. > > But I would suggest caution about taking certain phrases at their common > reading. What do other people really mean by internationalisation or > globalisation? > > Before and elsewhere a lot of people presumed there was agreement about > "enhanced cooperation". But this was also a standard piece of EU jargon > which referred to a group of member states, nation states, getting togeth= er > to achieve certain goals. > > http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/enhanced_cooperation_en.h= tm > > But as both the US and ETNO are doing, it is part of the game to try and > impose your preferred interpretation early! > > Gordon > > > On 12 Feb, 2014, at 21:27, Russ Housley wrote: > > FYI.. > > Statement of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and > Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling on the European > Commission statement on Internet governance: > > The U.S. government welcomes the strong and continued commitment of the > European Commission to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance. > We will work with the Commission and other Internet stakeholders to make > multistakeholder governance more inclusive, especially to support the > engagement of countries in the developing world. We have long encouraged > the further globalization of ICANN as reflected in our work the last five > years to improve the accountability and transparency of ICANN to all nati= ons > and stakeholders. > > > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech > > > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech > From sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Thu Feb 13 05:03:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C36F1A022F for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:03:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id joVkjcbALp45 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:02:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B2D1A022D for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:02:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id lx4so6443039iec.41 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:02:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RSMsjS3jTKPDJ5oXQ2i0DxTxq+Cd32ho3KTJm/oje0c=; b=o7pIlCwkmE5CrtbZxjvdTtUArVRakL2FC79Z4AaJTZbSPo+vtWrxUAamMolmK49dKH xW4uj2ctrLHodFseC7sz+7sgD6+ZPF//zWP1oZBG4S7/uLyTdgdB9t01TXOjIcaT5yII Z0x+G8xDpDlpzf6M1gkUPdWQBQ++O4MZKlzw7AKs455x3RXOVeIXLCkuBCRQDycdYaMr fSOFMAnhdr9C8EsS4UIHWUpbavdXtmIFqtCugy/klWx2mSgvvyIeDfXAAqZ9S+3qgDOo C+EptjwRnBVWju4vwRz4eLOdJtG/3LCdWt9CvLhetKAVoXA4UyjXwiZvMkYZzu2rDDbA aLlg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.98.202 with SMTP id cp10mr1016991icc.28.1392296577974; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:02:57 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.212.9 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:02:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:02:57 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HXBtI9APoulAE3ECpoan6ykFrug Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: Arturo Servin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5171911f3c89c04f2494ef9 Cc: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" , Gordon Lennox , Russ Housley , "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:03:05 -0000 --bcaec5171911f3c89c04f2494ef9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 (I'm not speaking on behalf of the European Commission right now) On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > "An effective > multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the internet > will be based on efficient > mutual interactions between technical and public policy considerations > so that technical > specifications more systematically take into account public policy > concerns." > > It a good goal, and in some way I have seen some IETF efforts in that > direction (this list for example). We just need to be careful in not > add to much policy to technical discussions or to create a new > standard body with that aim. > Honestly innocent question. Why wouldn't you want to create a new standard body with this aim? Inefficiency? Duplication? Is there a structured mechanism through which the IETF performs this kind of "efficient mutual interactions", besides participating in mailing lists and organising workshops from time to time? I have been following - and enjoying - the debate on IETF-discuss on the perpass proposal. I was often struck by the differences of view, among IETF participants, on whether the IETF should even talk about the issue. (Note: I'm not taking a position on the whole "pervasive passive surveillance" issue for the time being. It doesn't mean I don't have one, but simply that I don't think it's relevant for this particular discussion). Thanks, Andrea --bcaec5171911f3c89c04f2494ef9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
(I'm not speaking on behalf= of the European Commission right now)
=
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Arturo Serv= in <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
"An effective
multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the internet
will be based on efficient
mutual interactions between technical and public policy considerations
so that technical
specifications more systematically take into account public policy concerns= ."

It a good goal, and in some way I have seen some IETF efforts in that
direction (this list for example). We just need to be careful in not
add to much policy to technical discussions or to create a new
standard body with that aim.

Honestly i= nnocent question. Why wouldn't you want to create a new standard body w= ith this aim? Inefficiency? Duplication?

Is there a stru= ctured mechanism through which the IETF performs this kind of "efficie= nt mutual interactions", besides participating in mailing lists and or= ganising workshops from time to time?

I have been following - and enjoying - the debate on IETF-discuss on th= e perpass proposal. I was often struck by the differences of view, among IE= TF participants, on whether the IETF should even talk about the issue.

(Note: I'm not taking a position on the whole "perv= asive passive surveillance" issue for the time being. It doesn't m= ean I don't have one, but simply that I don't think it's releva= nt for this particular discussion).

Thanks,

Andrea
--bcaec5171911f3c89c04f2494ef9-- From gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com Thu Feb 13 05:08:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38701A0232 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:08:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZQ_tvpE_HfXC for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957101A0231 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id e4so3229883wiv.4 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:08:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=pc3X7QQucBIrQxMSraWVU7V+GH6ThAZmPwURPZcdN0o=; b=cLtZ7O9EMqhoaQjGUnKdRYf+u5S6aSMiGfld06UeWxypXnLT3odNzs6sPCCtHZYgIH 4029IUXdOc8kVbllhTtIz4ywZFNGNRhqZu1S7jb9AeebVadjGKQgzz9l38YnK+I3lcO+ AHCw4xYRjr44xk3Jm0io0L6pfAgA2iuqqtvIg/3jlRFuL4Tx5fpKTuy5VjfrFOhfhZvG uDTU/zRy48KMKYwGd4wvvtEqVP0oVqaWjvgF7/Hfsostt+8mLNKW81UZGsob+O+SwUDg Qriwyf5EpbfnIWUVADlP9mUQxEs4yze1Dfq2P5CY3pbDsf4f4pC7KBie/jdm6vpBmzcE D/VA== X-Received: by 10.194.2.228 with SMTP id 4mr794995wjx.83.1392296883064; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:08:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (89-157-44-128.rev.auchanbox.fr. [89.157.44.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q15sm4432674wjw.18.2014.02.13.05.07.59 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:08:00 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_390B9358-81E2-4020-946F-4A35A711EF0E" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) From: Gordon Lennox In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:07:58 +0100 Message-Id: References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> To: Andrea Glorioso X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" , Russ Housley , "internetgovtech@iab.org" , Arturo Servin Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:08:07 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_390B9358-81E2-4020-946F-4A35A711EF0E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On 13 Feb, 2014, at 14:02, Andrea Glorioso = wrote: > (I'm not speaking on behalf of the European Commission right now) Andrea, Maybe it would help if you used your Commission e-mail address when you = are speaking officially - and at least some of us know what that might = mean - and your private address when you are speaking as a individual = citizen. Gordon --Apple-Mail=_390B9358-81E2-4020-946F-4A35A711EF0E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 andrea@digitalpolicy.it> = wrote:

, Russ Housley , "internetgovtech@iab.org" , Arturo Servin Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:36:11 -0000 --001a11346e3c7a121604f249c55d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > On 13 Feb, 2014, at 14:02, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: > > (I'm not speaking on behalf of the European Commission right now) > > > Andrea, > > Maybe it would help if you used your Commission e-mail address when you > are speaking officially - and at least some of us know what that might mean > - and your private address when you are speaking as a individual citizen. > I could do it if that makes things easier for people, although it means I'd need to be subscribed with two email addresses. I know I can turn off delivery of messages for one of the addresses, but multiplying for all the relevant mailing lists I'm subscribed it becomes a bit tricky to manage. It should also be noted that even when writing from my European Commission's email address, I cannot speak officially for the European Commission unless (1) I am clearly stating so (rare) or (2) I am distributing official documents of the European Commission (in which case it is the documents which express an official position of the European Commission as the case might be). But again - if this is important for people on this list, I can do that. Best, Andrea --001a11346e3c7a121604f249c55d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:


On 13 Feb, 2014, at 14:02, Andrea Glorioso <andrea@digitalpo= licy.it> wrote:

(I'm not speaking on behalf of the European Commission r= ight now)

Andrea,

Maybe it would help i= f you used your Commission e-mail address when you are speaking officially = - and at least some of us know what that might mean - and your private addr= ess when you are speaking as a individual citizen.

I could do it if that makes things e= asier for people, although it means I'd need to be subscribed with two = email addresses. I know I can turn off delivery of messages for one of the = addresses, but multiplying for all the relevant mailing lists I'm subsc= ribed it becomes a bit tricky to manage.

It should also be noted that even when writing from my Europ= ean Commission's email address, I cannot speak officially for the Europ= ean Commission unless (1) I am clearly stating so (rare) or (2) I am distri= buting official documents of the European Commission (in which case it is t= he documents which express an official position of the European Commission = as the case might be).

But again - if this is important for people on th= is list, I can do that.

Best,

Andrea
--001a11346e3c7a121604f249c55d-- From cdel@firsthand.net Thu Feb 13 06:00:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942471A028D for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:00:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_UK=1.749, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KOs2I0_NDY-G for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:00:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from bmtwo.vm.bytemark.co.uk (mail.firsthand.net [212.110.188.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30631A026C for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 06:00:25 -0800 (PST) X-No-Relay: not in my network DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=firsthand.net; b=E+5zkajOSNiZXuuvslvRtkzyS8sJ49d5aayiA0K8crwwC9p6nvTVnfzSU8h65RYcwZ20jQSy85ZmIbmwpu4Rj2OabLwzIn6BS5O0x5FbxFBepR0CtYaDJFN89bo1E3Xi; h=X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:Received:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Message-Id:Cc:X-Mailer:From:Subject:Date:To; X-No-Relay: not in my network X-No-Relay: not in my network X-No-Relay: not in my network X-No-Relay: not in my network X-No-Relay: not in my network X-No-Relay: not in my network Received: from [10.140.130.202] (unknown [94.117.78.14]) by bmtwo.vm.bytemark.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C685E0004; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:00:21 +0000 (GMT) References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-B886481B-A548-44A3-AA77-BE2306A9D3D3 Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11B554a) From: "cdel.firsthand.net" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:00:21 +0000 To: Andrea Glorioso Cc: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" , Russ Housley , Gordon Lennox , Arturo Servin , "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:00:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail-B886481B-A548-44A3-AA77-BE2306A9D3D3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There are plenty of "standards" bodies.=20 Mostly public policy should encourage and protect open standards and their a= doption in the market not define them. Intervention may be justified if standards are being gamed by vested market d= ominant interests because that is likely to negatively impact on competitive= open networks and markets over them. But in a global space with many local m= arkets the challenge is I expect better focussed on engaging local interests= globally in standards activities that reflect real market needs rather than= defining some local special sauce. Liaisons can and have been established in european context. I remember help= ing set one up managed by european ISOC chapters with IAB approval after IET= F London in 2000 with EU ICT Standards board for example. I would observe th= at defining local Standards has ... limited utility as it has scope.=20 Christian de Larrinaga > On 13 Feb 2014, at 13:02, Andrea Glorioso wrote:= >=20 > (I'm not speaking on behalf of the European Commission right now) >=20 >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Arturo Servin w= rote: >> "An effective >> multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the internet >> will be based on efficient >> mutual interactions between technical and public policy considerations >> so that technical >> specifications more systematically take into account public policy concer= ns." >>=20 >> It a good goal, and in some way I have seen some IETF efforts in that >> direction (this list for example). We just need to be careful in not >> add to much policy to technical discussions or to create a new >> standard body with that aim. >=20 > Honestly innocent question. Why wouldn't you want to create a new standard= body with this aim? Inefficiency? Duplication?=20 >=20 > Is there a structured mechanism through which the IETF performs this kind o= f "efficient mutual interactions", besides participating in mailing lists an= d organising workshops from time to time? >=20 > I have been following - and enjoying - the debate on IETF-discuss on the p= erpass proposal. I was often struck by the differences of view, among IETF p= articipants, on whether the IETF should even talk about the issue. >=20 > (Note: I'm not taking a position on the whole "pervasive passive surveilla= nce" issue for the time being. It doesn't mean I don't have one, but simply t= hat I don't think it's relevant for this particular discussion). >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Andrea > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech --Apple-Mail-B886481B-A548-44A3-AA77-BE2306A9D3D3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There are plenty of "standards" bodies= . 

Mostly public policy should encourage and p= rotect open standards and their adoption in the market not define them.

Intervention may be justified if standards are being ga= med by vested market dominant interests because that is likely to negatively= impact on competitive open networks and markets over them. But in a global s= pace with many local markets the challenge is I expect better focussed on en= gaging local interests globally in standards activities that reflect real ma= rket needs rather than defining some local special sauce.

Liaisons can and have been established  in european context. I r= emember helping set one up managed by european ISOC chapters with IAB approv= al after IETF London in 2000 with EU ICT Standards board for example. I woul= d observe that defining local Standards has ... limited utility as it has sc= ope. 


Christian de Larrinaga


On 13 Feb 2014, at 13:02, Andrea Glorioso <andrea@digitalpolicy.it> wrote:

(I'm no= t speaking on behalf of the European Commission right now)

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:= 07 PM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
"An effective
multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the internet
will be based on efficient
mutual interactions between technical and public policy considerations
so that technical
specifications more systematically take into account public policy concerns.= "

It a good goal, and in some way I have seen some IETF efforts in that
direction (this list for example). We just need to be careful in not
add to much policy to technical discussions or to create a new
standard body with that aim.

Honestly in= nocent question. Why wouldn't you want to create a new standard body with th= is aim? Inefficiency? Duplication?

Is there a structured m= echanism through which the IETF performs this kind of "efficient mutual inte= ractions", besides participating in mailing lists and organising workshops f= rom time to time?

I have been following - and enjoying - the debate on IETF-discuss on the= perpass proposal. I was often struck by the differences of view, among IETF= participants, on whether the IETF should even talk about the issue.

(Note: I'm not taking a position on the whole "pervasive pass= ive surveillance" issue for the time being. It doesn't mean I don't have one= , but simply that I don't think it's relevant for this particular discussion= ).

Thanks,

Andrea
____________________= ___________________________
Internetgovtech mailing list
Internetgovtech@iab.= org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech=
= --Apple-Mail-B886481B-A548-44A3-AA77-BE2306A9D3D3-- From lear@cisco.com Thu Feb 13 08:23:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E7B1A0352 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:23:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.703 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BgXWHOAZr1Xd for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:23:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.203.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC59B1A034B for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:23:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5576; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392308629; x=1393518229; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=5O31UxzoLQGUlpidZ6Oxf3PItblzVYPyeKe8ZrLlbBs=; b=l7Ms7Itg4MK/zLjBmStoqUxtlJ3SxbnT4jNgy3LNg0UVH0121xXzNB95 2MW5rOYjWJpnSxaRu6HJWSH6p07Axp3QZISEsvfqwY4jWKyLgjfBFMYe2 iPAfJ2oUiZ8HzQYw/rcvrxna74xrUtEGXcj8FiIQTFlAHzqu2+TK5Klrr 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AloFAHDw/FKQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABZgwY4g1eFXbYgT4EXFnSCJQEBAQMBI0gDCgEQCxgJFgsCAgkDAgECASsaBgEMAQcBAQULh2kIDaVooigXjnkHgm+BSQSYLJIjgW+BPzs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,839,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="263422" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2014 16:23:47 +0000 Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.164.66]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1DGNkBA013166 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:23:47 GMT Message-ID: <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:23:47 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Glorioso , Arturo Servin References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000504050705060902050301" Cc: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" , Gordon Lennox , Russ Housley , "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:23:58 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000504050705060902050301 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Andrea, Speaking only for myself. On 2/13/14, 2:02 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > Honestly innocent question. Why wouldn't you want to create a new > standard body with this aim? Inefficiency? Duplication? Why not both? ;-) Seriously, probably most people in the IETF want to see a growing healthy secure Internet, but our primary focus is global voluntary standards that have been developed and reviewed by experts to achieve that goal, without having to end up dealing with externalities that come tied to government interactions. And I think we've done pretty well at it. > > Is there a structured mechanism through which the IETF performs this > kind of "efficient mutual interactions", besides participating in > mailing lists and organising workshops from time to time? ISOC does a great job on public policy issues that intersect this space, but that doesn't absolve the IETF leadership from paying attention or contributing to the discussions on occasion. The IAB has set up this list for community discussion around issues that do intersect technology and policy, where policy might become either an inhibitor or enabler (I have personally seen both). The focus was initially meant to be just PP, but other similar meetings would seem apt as well (again, speaking only for myself). > > I have been following - and enjoying - the debate on IETF-discuss on > the perpass proposal. I was often struck by the differences of view, > among IETF participants, on whether the IETF should even talk about > the issue. I find that healthy, and I hope you do too. I hope you will follow the results of the STRINT workshop[1], by the way. Eliot [1] http://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/strint/ --------------000504050705060902050301 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Andrea,

Speaking only for myself.

On 2/13/14, 2:02 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:


Honestly innocent question. Why wouldn't you want to create a new standard body with this aim? Inefficiency? Duplication?

Why not both? ;-)  Seriously, probably most people in the IETF want to see a growing healthy secure Internet, but our primary focus is global voluntary standards that have been developed and reviewed by experts to achieve that goal, without having to end up dealing with externalities that come tied to government interactions.  And I think we've done pretty well at it.


Is there a structured mechanism through which the IETF performs this kind of "efficient mutual interactions", besides participating in mailing lists and organising workshops from time to time?

ISOC does a great job on public policy issues that intersect this space, but that doesn't absolve the IETF leadership from paying attention or contributing to the discussions on occasion.  The IAB has set up this list for community discussion around issues that do intersect technology and policy, where policy might become either an inhibitor or enabler (I have personally seen both).  The focus was initially meant to be just PP, but other similar meetings would seem apt as well (again, speaking only for myself).


I have been following - and enjoying - the debate on IETF-discuss on the perpass proposal. I was often struck by the differences of view, among IETF participants, on whether the IETF should even talk about the issue.

I find that healthy, and I hope you do too.  I hope you will follow the results of the STRINT workshop[1], by the way.

Eliot
[1] http://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/strint/

--------------000504050705060902050301-- From nobody Thu Feb 13 09:35:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1593F1A02D4 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:35:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6vJJPlgLNApn for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319411A02CD for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id at1so803832iec.20 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:35:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=PtZCzsw1frBakuOlZOKU/LnNggBj4ah3fm5BIBkCj5Y=; b=ENqKw2A+8yNEp/AwswT65D8z/HlaWpY9Mm9AHH044orXu7dYduo8yVeZxTSAlegmH5 aWyGbEsLf8Kg374EGj2AaZhjNerxZDD124PzHgpKHV0eaXPwqBVkPciXQohrur4t+o/g vr1ICbbuZM7jw5ji0rGEnNvRdAcea+kMewtHvb1E8OzR4pTAEqA0jWGxXkjB0P25uRuh ADxKsKTeCHN37WxGTRJjCdnDx+ubpLv10PnuG3Msd5i11gLBdRU57EdR9y6X+YYP1n+/ hP7lXWdAVSfWgnJ68ILqkXNr1d2d+BQ5afwwu2Mqs2tTvPllYCF6xpghHeqGUZIRqhFp Lyxw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.171.134 with SMTP id nu6mr947239icc.92.1392312902665; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:35:02 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.212.9 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:35:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:35:02 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6gRNUGod0dbK3n4DxdLXsfjTWKU Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: "cdel.firsthand.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2f8baface5804f24d1b47 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/archive/details/internetgovtech/Fw9pp29o7Q4EcAB6p55_DoeiVzg Cc: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" , Russ Housley , Gordon Lennox , Arturo Servin , "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:35:11 -0000 --001a11c2f8baface5804f24d1b47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Christian, On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:00 PM, cdel.firsthand.net wrote: > There are plenty of "standards" bodies. > Agreed. That's a fact. :) > Mostly public policy should encourage and protect open standards and their > adoption in the market not define them. > > Intervention may be justified if standards are being gamed by vested > market dominant interests because that is likely to negatively impact on > competitive open networks and markets over them. But in a global space with > many local markets the challenge is I expect better focussed on engaging > local interests globally in standards activities that reflect real market > needs rather than defining some local special sauce. > A few points, trying in earnest to understand your position. First, you seem to take the position that the only role for public authorities should be to avoid abuse of dominant positions / market power (including, I assume, via cartels) in the definition of standards. Secondly, your reasoning seems to be that as long as open networks and markets remain open, and standard- or specification-making activities are not "gamed" (for whatever definition of "gaming" one might have), then the final result will be good. Thirdly, you conclude that "local" standards are sub-optimal and that one should rather try to make sure that local communities / people / groups engage in "global" standards. I would like to make sure I fully and well understood your points before expressing some further (personal :) opinions on them, and perhaps trying to see how this could match with the rationale for the section that has been quoted from COM(2014) 72/4. > Liaisons can and have been established in european context. I remember > helping set one up managed by european ISOC chapters with IAB approval > after IETF London in 2000 with EU ICT Standards board for example. I would > observe that defining local Standards has ... limited utility as it has > scope. > I don't question the usefulness of liaisons, quite the contrary. I'm just wondering (honestly - I will not repeat the qualifier again :) if they are sufficient. Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --001a11c2f8baface5804f24d1b47 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Christian,

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:00 PM, cdel.firsthand.net <cdel@firsthand.net> = wrote:
There are plenty of &= quot;standards" bodies.=A0

Agreed. That's a fact. :)
=A0
M= ostly public policy should encourage and protect open standards and their a= doption in the market not define them.
=A0
Intervention may be justified if standards are being gamed by v= ested market dominant interests because that is likely to negatively impact= on competitive open networks and markets over them. But in a global space = with many local markets the challenge is I expect better focussed on engagi= ng local interests globally in standards activities that reflect real marke= t needs rather than defining some local special sauce.

A few points, trying in earnest to u= nderstand your position.

First, you seem to take the position that t= he only role for public authorities should be to avoid abuse of dominant po= sitions / market power (including, I assume, via cartels) in the definition= of standards.

Secondly, your reasoning seems to be that as long as open networks and = markets remain open, and standard- or specification-making activities are n= ot "gamed" (for whatever definition of "gaming" one mig= ht have), then the final result will be good.

Thirdly, you conclude that "local" standards are s= ub-optimal and that one should rather try to make sure that local communiti= es / people / groups engage in "global" standards.

I would like to make sure I fully and well understood your points befo= re expressing some further (personal :) opinions on them, and perhaps tryin= g to see how this could match with the rationale for the section that has b= een quoted from COM(2014) 72/4.
=A0
L= iaisons can and have been established =A0in european context. I remember he= lping set one up managed by european ISOC chapters with IAB approval after = IETF London in 2000 with EU ICT Standards board for example. I would observ= e that defining local Standards has ... limited utility as it has scope.

I don't question the usefu= lness of liaisons, quite the contrary. I'm just wondering (honestly - I= will not repeat the qualifier again :) if they are sufficient.

Best,

Andrea

= --
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. K= eep it in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso<= /a>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/vie= w?id=3D1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--001a11c2f8baface5804f24d1b47-- From nobody Thu Feb 13 09:48:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E1F1A038D for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:48:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V5-xiDlUjzKR for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:47:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2B61A0396 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:47:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id j1so13574217iga.2 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:47:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=YIIugEcKioDfOY8leK/AG5QW+nle6CXkJ2RxbIj0NA4=; b=DtJGyIpDBIQyPXFdFTRU+osfv+MArZuTxMxC7Q9jfSOfRdVolc+0JRx/S9tPOFiZda rixilTSr2GboPtHNRIYM/bi5pr4lNcZmWywnJmbJ7C13VbT1pGb7D6UeXYasyeRQSYme 8DViNCg/3vV4rnCyJn8GLN3YsmUPGa7cUhuGQEGULxGHGttlFEXg2O3YbJwcZXaUNDAl k9izsToYYSG+2KbyJxVkMAIBzJPEUfJ5c5JXyxDDdlRqHhK6iN93O+TwG2c8FScf1Smp eaaOO0NYHqfj8u8ALDrd504dGhwiwkYCX0G3gNB3WpE1vBaCCqKCdOkWvJSizaBEILCC Jc9A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.79.166 with SMTP id k6mr4783476igx.47.1392313676398; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:47:56 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.212.9 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:47:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:47:56 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: JWZMEWchth3aoULTk5KdrPgWsXQ Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a114e190bd004f24d4aa2 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/pXVTchwMkIdwDajCi4nDtesXIUM Cc: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" , Russ Housley , Gordon Lennox , Arturo Servin , "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:48:00 -0000 --089e013a114e190bd004f24d4aa2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Eliot, On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > Speaking only for myself. > I assumed so. ;) > > Why not both? ;-) Seriously, probably most people in the IETF want to see > a growing healthy secure Internet, but our primary focus is global > voluntary standards that have been developed and reviewed by experts to > achieve that goal, without having to end up dealing with externalities that > come tied to government interactions. And I think we've done pretty well > at it. > I think that the notion of "growing" can be defined in a way that would not be very much open to debate. But how do we define what is a "healthy" or a "secure" Internet? I also find it interesting - and I absolutely don't mean to be flippant - that you use the term "externality" to refer to "government interactions", mostly because in economics externalities can be positive or negative. You seem to assume (or I think you seem to assume) that any interaction with governments generates a negative externality (although you do say below that policy can be an "inhibitor or an enabler"). > > Is there a structured mechanism through which the IETF performs this > kind of "efficient mutual interactions", besides participating in mailing > lists and organising workshops from time to time? > > ISOC does a great job on public policy issues that intersect this space, > but that doesn't absolve the IETF leadership from paying attention or > contributing to the discussions on occasion. The IAB has set up this list > for community discussion around issues that do intersect technology and > policy, where policy might become either an inhibitor or enabler (I have > personally seen both). The focus was initially meant to be just PP, but > other similar meetings would seem apt as well (again, speaking only for > myself). > I know well ISOC's work and I appreciate it, whether or not I (or the European Commission) agrees with the relevant output. I wonder how much that kind of work trickles down into the IETF (participants) and vice-versa. And to be clear, I think this list is an absolutely excellent idea, but having been on mailing lists for a good part of my 36 years, I am somehow skeptical about the ability of such instruments to "scale" to the level of structured interactions that would probably be needed in order to ensure a good bidirectional transmission chain between technology and policy. I assume that by PP you mean the ITU Plenipotentiary Meeting? I have been following - and enjoying - the debate on IETF-discuss on the perpass proposal. I was often struck by the differences of view, among IETF participants, on whether the IETF should even talk about the issue. I find that healthy, and I hope you do too. > That there are differences of view? Yes, absolutely. > I hope you will follow the results of the STRINT workshop[1], by the way. > I was very much hoping I could attend that workshop but alas it will not be possible. I will however read with great interest the relevant results. (And by the way, that particular workshop is co-hosted / co-organised by participants to the STREWS project, which is funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, or FP7 as we call it. Allow me a bit of promotion ;) Ciao, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --089e013a114e190bd004f24d4aa2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Eliot,


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.co= m> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Hi Andrea,

Speaking only for myself.

I assum= ed so. ;)
=A0

Why not both? ;-)=A0 Seriously, probably most people in the IETF want to see a growing healthy secure Internet, but our primary focus is global voluntary standards that have been developed and reviewed by experts to achieve that goal, without having to end up dealing with externalities that come tied to government interactions.=A0 And I think we've done pretty well at it.

=
I think that the notion of "growing" can be defined in= a way that would not be very much open to debate. But how do we define wha= t is a "healthy" or a "secure" Internet?

I also find it interesting - and I absolutely don't mean= to be flippant - that you use the term "externality" to refer to= "government interactions", mostly because in economics externali= ties can be positive or negative. You seem to assume (or I think you seem t= o assume) that any interaction with governments generates a negative extern= ality (although you do say below that policy can be an "inhibitor or a= n enabler").

Is there a structured mechanism through which the IETF performs this kind of "efficient mutual interactions&quo= t;, besides participating in mailing lists and organising workshops from time to time?
ISOC does a great job on public policy issues that intersect this space, but that doesn't absolve the IETF leadership from paying attention or contributing to the discussions on occasion.=A0 The IAB has set up this list for community discussion around issues that do intersect technology and policy, where policy might become either an inhibitor or enabler (I have personally seen both).=A0 The focus was initially meant to be just PP, but other similar meetings would seem apt as well (again, speaking only for myself).

I know well ISOC's work and I a= ppreciate it, whether or not I (or the European Commission) agrees with the= relevant output. I wonder how much that kind of work trickles down into th= e IETF (participants) and vice-versa.

And to be clear, I think this list is an absolutely excellen= t idea, but having been on mailing lists for a good part of my 36 years, I = am somehow skeptical about the ability of such instruments to "scale&q= uot; to the level of structured interactions that would probably be needed = in order to ensure a good bidirectional transmission chain between technolo= gy and policy.
=A0
I assume that by PP you mean the IT= U Plenipotentiary Meeting?
I have been following - and enjoying -= the debate on IETF-discuss on the perpass proposal. I was often struck by the differences of view, among IETF participants, on whether the IETF should even talk about the issue.
=20

I find that healthy, and I hope you do too.=A0
=
That there are differences of view? Yes, absolutely.
=A0
I hope you will follow the results of the STRINT workshop[1], by the way.

I was very much hoping I could attend that workshop b= ut alas it will not be possible. I will however read with great interest th= e relevant results. (And by the way, that particular workshop is co-hosted = / co-organised by participants to the STREWS project, which is funded by th= e European Union under the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technol= ogical Development, or FP7 as we call it. Allow me a bit of promotion ;)
Ciao,

Andrea

--
I speak only fo= r myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
Tw= itter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--089e013a114e190bd004f24d4aa2-- From nobody Thu Feb 13 11:03:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98AC1A040F for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:03:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WM-hH-nGsWlS for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BE51A040D for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.156.162]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1DJ30S1009470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:03:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1392318194; bh=QOx6KOmdga703pN1OFcqAZ6AGp3byQuo1PUMFrgXbRs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=SQEkBAG8JS2GAFyUqYdO1YDGhWk4tlSHLSPVzuxEN5e3cKpn44O56MOvLdzMJqy9v vwe8mACEHPHNG8EpVgDV91s/f0pSouqxq5nUZLNvoYEJb28/CUJ7WjepDwUmZAf0ZY UJciOhvLfmaKBrvjXnBP1ILHiVeP5jkwF4hXRhEc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1392318194; i=@elandsys.com; bh=QOx6KOmdga703pN1OFcqAZ6AGp3byQuo1PUMFrgXbRs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=1P5sQpHbzs9Lvx88CsEq1+dU+Vwf5x0HP1tlywDx/a3QhwmYgdUIxbDxN/huf+Mpd yo3WqsFNUVcd++xFnjvG8JGI/SfugQd8psRCuutpO2KleOlDBx2vRGAUcTbHEhddJh RaMfEwMrg6N39FtYbm2/jEE2V1pEmfz52qJiD7AI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140213103950.0d888180@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:58:59 -0800 To: Andrea Glorioso From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/J1dFEFRvQwWZwVwNQWLg2__XhwY Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Eliot Lear Subject: [Internetgovtech] A "healthy" or a "secure" internet (was: US Government response to the European Commission statement) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:03:34 -0000 Hi Andrea, At 09:47 13-02-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >I think that the notion of "growing" can be defined in a way that >would not be very much open to debate. But how do we define what is >a "healthy" or a "secure" Internet? Credits to Detlef Bosau for the following: "But you will agree: WHEN you are interested in scientific questions, don't ask students or professors, but ask a kid." To answer the first (quoted) question I would ask the person what he or she considers as a "healthy" or a "secure" internet. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Thu Feb 13 12:25:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8661A04D4 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:25:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.704 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VcX1YkGXFxxh for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.203.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3BB1A04CC for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:24:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2791; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1392323098; x=1393532698; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P8cR2yM8CEszl+G9Kpb6/WElFVb5IylE2khCIaTXPuw=; b=gH30NeN66/4YuomYnT1inaYiGzK7fUIagi3NlPXKPinuA2/i8OJ1QR/w /5+OOxa42WXE8324y9DFzmgw8RrgdhDvjmZAjcUH0Y90VCTpjAmLR28bD KaRwy2ZNG0H/95F8Q92wXmpPKjFrsdg6UhiZaF8cSXLnnx2TayWzzQe+1 s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAP8o/VKQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABZgwY4g1e8ToEaFnSCJQEBAQIBASNJCgIBBQsLGgIFDAoLAgIJAwIBAgErGgYNAQcBAQWHdAgNpVqiGheBKY1QBwqCZYFJBJgskiOBb4E/Ow X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,840,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="277524" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2014 20:24:56 +0000 Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.164.137]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1DKOtLU004877 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:24:56 GMT Message-ID: <52FD2A19.9040006@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:24:57 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Glorioso References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/F5XTkqgYQmNHJvTEwPDMFtJRj4Q Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:25:01 -0000 Hi Andrea, Again, speaking only for myself. On 2/13/14, 6:47 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > I think that the notion of "growing" can be defined in a way that > would not be very much open to debate. But how do we define what is a > "healthy" or a "secure" Internet? These are of course subjective terms. Healthy to me is one where the Internet can effectively and safely serve the needs of its users. In the context of the IETF and for purposes of this discussion, let's keep it bounded to providing interoperable connectivity at ever increasing scale, in a manner in which links are used efficiently and with some notion of fairness (that is to say, two competing applications will gain roughly the same share of a link, all other things being equal. This includes transport mechanisms such as TCP, UDP, and SCTP; the addressing and routing systems, which are tightly bound together, as well as auto-configuration (a'la DHCP) and the like. Examples of unhealthy would be if the routing system were injured in some way. Policy can have an impact on that, by the way. Again, scoping this to IETF matters, "secure", to me, means confidentiality, authenticity, and integrity of communications are maintained. Security can be impacted by many policy aspects Imagine, for example, a government mandating implementation and use of broken encryption. > > I also find it interesting - and I absolutely don't mean to be > flippant - that you use the term "externality" to refer to "government > interactions", mostly because in economics externalities can be > positive or negative. You seem to assume (or I think you seem to > assume) that any interaction with governments generates a negative > externality (although you do say below that policy can be an > "inhibitor or an enabler"). And indeed I agree there are both positive and negative externalities. We can't forget that it was a government that first funded this great project, and many governments have devoted and talented people who have worked at the technical level to scale the network. We just held a workshop on Internet Technology Adoption and Transition (ITAT) in which researchers presented a bundling model that takes into account both positive and negative externalities.[1,2] On the other hand, in a government context there is the possibility of linkage to issues where the "good" is quite opaque, and quite frankly I have seen this linkage in action, and it is not pretty. The merits (if any) of the work are lost. This is why I support the OpenStand principles (www.open-stand.org), and why I think everyone should. Eliot [1] http://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/itat/ [2] http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/06/itat-2013_submission_2.pdf From nobody Thu Feb 13 12:56:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7CF41A045B for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:56:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_UK=1.749, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rcKZWdDSFAzd for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:56:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from bmtwo.vm.bytemark.co.uk (mail.firsthand.net [212.110.188.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6A51A04BD for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:56:18 -0800 (PST) X-No-Relay: not in my network DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=firsthand.net; b=E+oHuUn9xTWCROsHttfHdvOQYZG2nLN357ZRJgmflyIpb5VEO8nUpo71aEK46R0k0idZGmyfQlHLn6jICu9BvWWirlETfKE2nznDUrXT3oTgsdvK1K/u1fVaFPrLZ3Vo; h=X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:Received:References:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Message-Id:Cc:X-Mailer:From:Subject:Date:To; X-No-Relay: not in my network X-No-Relay: not in my network X-No-Relay: not in my network X-No-Relay: not in my network X-No-Relay: not in my network X-No-Relay: not in my network Received: from [192.168.43.73] (unknown [31.81.175.165]) by bmtwo.vm.bytemark.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1B74E0004; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:56:13 +0000 (GMT) References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9E79AB2F-7349-4706-AE6B-F107A2CC7CD9 Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11B554a) From: "cdel.firsthand.net" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:56:05 +0000 To: Andrea Glorioso Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/JpNeBtMWircfOHG_1Y2_gY4Otms Cc: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" , Russ Housley , Gordon Lennox , Arturo Servin , "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:56:41 -0000 --Apple-Mail-9E79AB2F-7349-4706-AE6B-F107A2CC7CD9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Inline=20 > On 13 Feb 2014, at 17:35, Andrea Glorioso wrote:= >=20 > Dear Christian, >=20 >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:00 PM, cdel.firsthand.net w= rote: >> There are plenty of "standards" bodies.=20 >=20 > Agreed. That's a fact. :) > =20 >> Mostly public policy should encourage and protect open standards and thei= r adoption in the market not define them. > =20 >> Intervention may be justified if standards are being gamed by vested mark= et dominant interests because that is likely to negatively impact on competi= tive open networks and markets over them. But in a global space with many lo= cal markets the challenge is I expect better focussed on engaging local inte= rests globally in standards activities that reflect real market needs rather= than defining some local special sauce. >=20 > A few points, trying in earnest to understand your position. >=20 > First, you seem to take the position that the only role for public authori= ties should be to avoid abuse of dominant positions / market power (includin= g, I assume, via cartels) in the definition of standards. >=20 No that isn't what I wrote. I was specific to describe need for a split of e= ffective responsibilities between policy oversight and standards negotiation= . The examples I give are indicative not a gospel.=20 > Secondly, your reasoning seems to be that as long as open networks and mar= kets remain open, and standard- or specification-making activities are not "= gamed" (for whatever definition of "gaming" one might have), then the final r= esult will be good. Not good but open to innovation and change. Unlike telephone networks which p= revent innovation by asserting vertically integrated ownership rights. I'd also split the design from any specific implementations which you did no= t. So IETF designs and standardises (rough consensus) on an agreed demarcati= on of two independent real world implementations (running code) to prove it w= orks and there are independent references to make it work in practice but th= e market dynamics of operating a network that chooses to deploy or not deplo= y those standards is a separate issue . Often locally significant. >=20 > Thirdly, you conclude that "local" standards are sub-optimal and that one s= hould rather try to make sure that local communities / people / groups engag= e in "global" standards. If you want to connect globally it is necessary I think to have the same bas= ic rules or standards. >=20 > I would like to make sure I fully and well understood your points before e= xpressing some further (personal :) opinions on them, and perhaps trying to s= ee how this could match with the rationale for the section that has been quo= ted from COM(2014) 72/4. > =20 >> Liaisons can and have been established in european context. I remember h= elping set one up managed by european ISOC chapters with IAB approval after I= ETF London in 2000 with EU ICT Standards board for example. I would observe t= hat defining local Standards has ... limited utility as it has scope. >=20 > I don't question the usefulness of liaisons, quite the contrary. I'm just w= ondering (honestly - I will not repeat the qualifier again :) if they are su= fficient. >=20 Communications without understanding or to give the tech sense "clue" is not= sufficient by definition. It turns out to be very hard to impart and share c= lue.=20 > Best, >=20 > Andrea >=20 Hope that helps=20 Christian > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep i= t in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro --Apple-Mail-9E79AB2F-7349-4706-AE6B-F107A2CC7CD9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Inline 

On 13 Feb 2= 014, at 17:35, Andrea Glorioso <andrea@digitalpolicy.it> wrote:

Dear Christian,

=
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:00 PM, cdel.firsthand.net <cdel@firsthand.net> wrote:
There are plenty of "st= andards" bodies. 

Agreed. T= hat's a fact. :)
 
= Mostly public policy should encourage and protect open standards and their a= doption in the market not define them.
 
Intervention may be justified if standards are being gamed by ves= ted market dominant interests because that is likely to negatively impact on= competitive open networks and markets over them. But in a global space with= many local markets the challenge is I expect better focussed on engaging lo= cal interests globally in standards activities that reflect real market need= s rather than defining some local special sauce.

A few points, trying in earnest to un= derstand your position.

First, you seem to take the position that the= only role for public authorities should be to avoid abuse of dominant posit= ions / market power (including, I assume, via cartels) in the definition of s= tandards.


No that isn't what I wrot= e. I was specific to describe need for a split of effective responsibilities= between policy oversight and standards negotiation. The examples I give are= indicative not a gospel. 

Second= ly, your reasoning seems to be that as long as open networks and markets rem= ain open, and standard- or specification-making activities are not "gamed" (= for whatever definition of "gaming" one might have), then the final result w= ill be good.

No= t good but open to innovation and change. Unlike telephone networks which pr= event innovation by asserting vertically integrated ownership rights.
<= div>
I'd also split the design from any specific implementatio= ns which you did not. So IETF designs and standardises (rough consensus) on a= n agreed demarcation of two independent real world implementations (running c= ode) to prove it works and there are independent references to make it work i= n practice but the market dynamics of operating a network that chooses to de= ploy or not deploy those standards is a separate issue . Often locally signi= ficant.



Thirdly, you conclude that "local" standards are sub-optimal a= nd that one should rather try to make sure that local communities / people /= groups engage in "global" standards.

If you want to connect globally it is necessary I= think to have the same basic rules or standards.


I would like to make sure I fully and well understood your points befor= e expressing some further (personal :) opinions on them, and perhaps trying t= o see how this could match with the rationale for the section that has been q= uoted from COM(2014) 72/4.
 
= Liaisons can and have been established  in european context. I remember= helping set one up managed by european ISOC chapters with IAB approval afte= r IETF London in 2000 with EU ICT Standards board for example. I would obser= ve that defining local Standards has ... limited utility as it has scope.

I don't question the usefulness= of liaisons, quite the contrary. I'm just wondering (honestly - I will not r= epeat the qualifier again :) if they are sufficient.


Commun= ications without understanding or to give the tech sense "clue" is not suffi= cient by definition. It turns out to be very hard to impart and share clue.&= nbsp;


Best,

Andrea

Hope that helps 

Christian
--I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it= in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id= =3D1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
= --Apple-Mail-9E79AB2F-7349-4706-AE6B-F107A2CC7CD9-- From nobody Thu Feb 13 14:23:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F96E1A0478 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:23:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lXCWgbqbSNHh for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:23:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x22b.google.com (mail-qa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92CBA1A03BF for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:23:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id o15so17035586qap.16 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:23:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=ukpGxUPuJOYP91vpGbuIYdxcRyPrsZGxE/CgFkAN2LA=; b=P8Ab1Jh9UhupXNeDsArAiLAb2zI/+3NZ6eJ7hi4aaDk9e85wzd80/lEUkWSpnVNLK1 Depfrqj8mWt79RaT+GwSeK4bsxTieMYoUTypdiv8R1Dxq7E48WY6p7k/x4J5MZFDVrMb bFsHXLGOHF5FyXtC1d3WXBhXM2qekFqOMbpyBzzjNBGLSz91hthcRrkfAZNDy42PS5aK XkEKE+lCLTbMEJavw8bJyJcTmAngYPba3C1o4oS5G5GDQIPK2z5AN4Zg9eHdSYW4ArMg ecVjZbX5MKujGiTNKs/4w4fTtJtq98KenRIfbWMhF3oyeJxVFKBalYmQ5fwScUSxjNjz xX8Q== X-Received: by 10.140.39.20 with SMTP id u20mr6540410qgu.73.1392330192066; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:23:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.87.69 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:22:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> From: Arturo Servin Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 23:22:51 +0100 Message-ID: To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/bncE2y6qFt5hs6dANQTF8hWjd9M Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:23:16 -0000 Forgot to reply to the list On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > Andrea, > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: >> (I'm not speaking on behalf of the European Commission right now) >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Arturo Servin >> wrote: >>> >>> "An effective >>> multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the internet >>> will be based on efficient >>> mutual interactions between technical and public policy considerations >>> so that technical >>> specifications more systematically take into account public policy >>> concerns." >>> >>> It a good goal, and in some way I have seen some IETF efforts in that >>> direction (this list for example). We just need to be careful in not >>> add to much policy to technical discussions or to create a new >>> standard body with that aim. >> >> >> Honestly innocent question. Why wouldn't you want to create a new standard >> body with this aim? Inefficiency? Duplication? > > Both. > > In fact, why would you want to create one? I see very low value to do > it, and a lot of duplicate efforts, inefficiency, L9 wars, angry and > flappy birds, etc. Not a very good idea so far. > >> >> Is there a structured mechanism through which the IETF performs this kind of >> "efficient mutual interactions", besides participating in mailing lists and >> organising workshops from time to time? > > It depends of what you define as structured mechanisms, but there are > efforts from the IESG and the IAB to be more involve in not 100% > technical activities. If this worked, eventually this would be > something than WG and drafts authors may do. There are some examples > where, we as technical people try to bring concerns (not just > operational but policy concerns) to WG to work on better standards. > > We need to have a balance between flexible and structured mechanisms. > Perhaps today we are too flexible but having more structured > mechanisms does not seem to be a good alternative. > >> >> I have been following - and enjoying - the debate on IETF-discuss on the >> perpass proposal. I was often struck by the differences of view, among IETF >> participants, on whether the IETF should even talk about the issue. > > The most interesting is the bast differences in views and how in the > end we could come up with something useful. That is a rare value that > the IETF has. > > Regards > as From nobody Thu Feb 13 18:07:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBFA1A004B for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:07:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PsZrHxFv2MrR for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:07:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC59D1A0043 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:07:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86D319A4304; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:07:39 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hHb-bmvJgl1T; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:07:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [172.20.40.95] (unknown [12.189.153.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2888D9A42FA; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:07:18 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-589--427911838 From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:07:12 -0500 Message-Id: <3337069F-76EC-48A1-BA25-4872FF544AB8@vigilsec.com> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com>, <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> To: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/ifQdhPtKhxRkNBO_yJRPq-Xt-yg Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 02:07:53 -0000 --Apple-Mail-589--427911838 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> = http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_i= d=3D4453 >>=20 >> I find this document very interesting, especially page 5. > Russ, >=20 > and what do you think of pages 7-8, "Technical Norms Shaping the = Internet"? >=20 > Alejandro Pisanty The situation is complex. There is not a unified technical community, = and there is not a unified policy community. Let's look at three real world projects that are going on right now. = These are just examples off the top of my head. (1) PAWS (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/paws/charter/) I really hope that the result of this working group is able to make = television whitespace available for data all over the world. This = cannot be successful unless the spectrum regulatory bodies are engaged = in the process. The FCC was the first to engage, and the first versions = of the specifications seem to meet their needs, and then OFCOM provided = some comments that caused a complete redesign. I hope others engage = very soon so that a global solution is possible. (2) ECRIT (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/charter/) I really hope that the result of this working group is able to specify = emergency service access on a global scale from every mobile VoIP = device. One challenge is that many governments can reference IETF = standards in their regulations. This could lead to interoperability = problems. (3) STIR (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/stir/charter/) I really hope that the result of this working group make it more = difficult for robocalling, vishing, and swatting all over the world. In each of these examples, a different portion of the policy community = needs to participate. I believe they have been invited to do so. I do = not know if they will. Russ --Apple-Mail-589--427911838 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/= document.cfm?doc_id=3D4453

I find this document = very interesting, especially page = 5.

Russ,

and what do you think of = pages 7-8, "Technical Norms Shaping the = Internet"?

Alejandro = Pisanty

The = situation is complex.  There is not a unified technical community, = and there is not a unified policy = community.

Let's look at three real world = projects that are going on right now.  These are just examples off = the top of my head.



I really hope = that the result of this working group is able to make television = whitespace available for data all over the world.  This cannot be = successful unless the spectrum regulatory bodies are engaged in the = process.  The FCC was the first to engage, and the first versions = of the specifications seem to meet their needs, and then OFCOM provided = some comments that caused a complete redesign.  I hope others = engage very soon so that a global solution is = possible.



I really hope = that the result of this working group is able to specify emergency = service access on a global scale from every mobile VoIP device. =  One challenge is that many governments can reference IETF = standards in their regulations.  This could lead to = interoperability problems.


I really hope = that the result of this working group make it more difficult = for  robocalling, vishing, and swatting all over the world.


In each of these examples, a different portion of the policy = community needs to participate.  I believe they have been invited = to do so.  I do not know if they will.

Russ

= --Apple-Mail-589--427911838-- From nobody Thu Feb 13 19:46:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7EB1A00B9 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:46:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ykpkbsgwWy4S for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:46:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6C31A002E for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:46:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id kp14so11674703pab.23 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:46:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9z6anvD/rAPI6IItz+4AMzIuUEUXSs93NwLit0pC7yg=; b=oUFS3FdrGoD1FR5gYaI4ba18Z1XG/3ZHZPdtmtrjqmY0YPDtWllLmtB6/S/DazBfJ6 sNZ0x0meTGGVMufsDct8Qab41iO7a67hkHk6LX6K8E02aMKQPbxbYT6x5BdUe/o6eo/6 GWpdBSHMNLDeWmpTcBELqbpn4+DM6b6+Fady3ghXLBNryktxMPk64FBJUNPOvgB5pmj6 FKgkBEHzVJFZeGmDNNTQ9yS8hsqA+pjDHlIFRAXXdRcpe2Nse+wY7iDCUrhpC3Hb7u7B Q93idE+2ImTpAgkqeMde9kHwOOsq8XAHCWT3ZO23R45P0XyEgcYq6wMyaBJflhKz3AAF yvzg== X-Received: by 10.66.139.169 with SMTP id qz9mr6345008pab.16.1392349566899; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:46:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.11] (121-74-129-159.telstraclear.net. [121.74.129.159]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x5sm11921026pbw.26.2014.02.13.19.46.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:46:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52FD9183.8090101@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:46:11 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Glorioso References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/q5gpPM0FFa2pxYGzbnZdK7UCxvE Cc: "cdel.firsthand.net" , "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" , Russ Housley , Arturo Servin , "internetgovtech@iab.org" , Gordon Lennox Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 03:46:10 -0000 Andrea, I can't speak for Christian, but I woukld like to comment on these points. On 14/02/2014 06:35, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear Christian, > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:00 PM, cdel.firsthand.net wrote: > >> There are plenty of "standards" bodies. >> > > Agreed. That's a fact. :) > > >> Mostly public policy should encourage and protect open standards and their >> adoption in the market not define them. >> > > >> Intervention may be justified if standards are being gamed by vested >> market dominant interests because that is likely to negatively impact on >> competitive open networks and markets over them. But in a global space with >> many local markets the challenge is I expect better focussed on engaging >> local interests globally in standards activities that reflect real market >> needs rather than defining some local special sauce. >> > > A few points, trying in earnest to understand your position. > > First, you seem to take the position that the only role for public > authorities should be to avoid abuse of dominant positions / market power > (including, I assume, via cartels) in the definition of standards. That is IMHO certainly the most useful thing a public authority can do (as the EC took the lead in Europe in telco demonopolisation in the past). I think there can be an important role in stimulating new technologies; I suspect that EC actions had more than a little effect in stimulating GSM for example, and that required stimulating multivendor standards of course. But when there is already a very healthy and vigorous open voluntary standards body in place, I don't see what value a public authority can add. > Secondly, your reasoning seems to be that as long as open networks and > markets remain open, and standard- or specification-making activities are > not "gamed" (for whatever definition of "gaming" one might have), then the > final result will be good. If it isn't good, it won't be used. Indeed, a lot of standards efforts go to waste because it turns out that there is no corresponding market demand. That's like any R&D activity: failure is always an option; the risk of failure has to be accepted as well as the chance of success. > > Thirdly, you conclude that "local" standards are sub-optimal and that one > should rather try to make sure that local communities / people / groups > engage in "global" standards. Definitely. In the Internet, local standards are a big waste of effort. Note: I'm talking about infrastructure. Obviously there is scope for local entrepreneurship for applications that match a particular culture or economy. But that shouldn't concern the EU, should it? > > I would like to make sure I fully and well understood your points before > expressing some further (personal :) opinions on them, and perhaps trying > to see how this could match with the rationale for the section that has > been quoted from COM(2014) 72/4. > > >> Liaisons can and have been established in european context. I remember >> helping set one up managed by european ISOC chapters with IAB approval >> after IETF London in 2000 with EU ICT Standards board for example. I would >> observe that defining local Standards has ... limited utility as it has >> scope. >> > > I don't question the usefulness of liaisons, quite the contrary. I'm just > wondering (honestly - I will not repeat the qualifier again :) if they are > sufficient. I don't see how to do better. We surely don't need yet more SDOs. Regards Brian Carpenter From nobody Fri Feb 14 09:27:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6A21A0214 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:27:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HKkjbI4bsvnn for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:27:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6ACD1A017F for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:27:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from 28.57.14.81.rev.sfr.net ([81.14.57.28]:43117 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WEMXj-0006Iz-TY; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:27:16 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:26:54 +0100 To: Russ Housley , Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <3337069F-76EC-48A1-BA25-4872FF544AB8@vigilsec.com> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <3337069F-76EC-48A1-BA25-4872FF544AB8@vigilsec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/_68Ny5U5_76g4S30wv5-v9SJBG8 Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:27:20 -0000 At 03:07 14/02/2014, Russ Housley wrote: >The situation is complex. There is not a unified technical >community, and there is not a unified policy community. >Let's look at three real world projects that are going on right >now. These are just examples off the top of my head. Russ, your examples shows a correct vision. The problem is that: >In each of these examples, a different portion of the policy >community needs to participate. I believe they have been invited to >do so. I do not know if they will. They will probably not because they feel they are not competent enough and many techies oppose the idea. As you know I think the solution lies in the lead users. The problem is to find a way for a very few people to introduce a new concept that can work (the important point is not that is does deploy, but that it could). And then one needs a trigger. After several others (multilingualism, diversity support, subsidiarity, etc.) I thought I found a trigger with the good work of RFC 6852, but with the final say being left to commerce and techies and not to people in case of architectonical disagreement. Still complex. I thought it would be possible to do something in using Brian's agreement on a MS defined root and an HomeRoot experimentation project. But there is still the idea that the root file is a command not a report. Then Mike Roberts came with the fact of the life that the congress-military-insdutrial complex would block any non-US favorable reform (what will be the same for any other gov). This is the opening for the "simultaneous VGN" (vitual global networks) concept, parallel national/community governances, strengthening the global unity of the network in piling 192 legal bodies over it. A global governance of MS global governances, for a network of networks. MSism means that every of us are operating our own virtual global network on the same footing as billions others and Govs, and the US Gov for the ARPANET intenetting. This is a technically uncompleted project (http://vgnic.org)? We are going to complete it. In fully respecting RFCs. Because the work done by the IETF so far is excellent. It will motivate people for the fringe to fringe layers where we need to support presentation layer six security, multilingualism, multitechnology, starting with EDI and the IoT. Now, what will be the response? - call me a fool/troll? good it will make publicity to VGNs - kill the mailing list? on which grounds? added publicity if you have to accept it. - dispute the project: good! it will help making it be better. - technically oppose it? how? Cheers. jfc From nobody Sun Feb 16 16:35:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676501A00EA for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:35:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.631 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14uXzN3cCTdk for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:35:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642031A0078 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:35:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from 28.57.14.81.rev.sfr.net ([81.14.57.28]:5866 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WFCAr-00068w-Fk; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:35:05 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:32:54 +0100 To: Russ Housley From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <20140214172722.1B7DB1A028B@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <3337069F-76EC-48A1-BA25-4872FF544AB8@vigilsec.com> <20140214172722.1B7DB1A028B@ietfa.amsl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/JG0lYtxsbusUgKoQcrovmYpLdUQ Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, iucg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 00:35:10 -0000 At 18:26 14/02/2014, Jefsey wrote: >At 03:07 14/02/2014, Russ Housley wrote: >>Let's look at three real world projects that are going on right >>now. These are just examples off the top of my head. FYI. FAQs on VGNs. http://iucg.org/wiki/VGN:_FAQs I will try to maintain the various related topics at http://iucg.org/wiki/VGN_and_VGNICs, a VGN/VGNIC portal for further work on the issue. I do not know how long it will take to catch but this is an inflexion point. VGNs are certainly a way to implement OpenStand in the real world, review the whole governance issue, and arouse big enough interests to oblige an RFC 6852 inflexion toward a conflict management system where the ultimate decision rests with an MS decision process. jfc From nobody Mon Feb 17 13:45:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235081A02E9 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:45:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T5rE1yLpyEr7 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:45:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9121A02E5 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:45:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id f8so2859806wiw.3 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:45:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date :to:mime-version; bh=HHN1UbHT80cOPtX2dHfMvpaNNrR2xxPJV2IUDEjDjak=; b=jCCoq8CuOFUI/Dz6UGKmRpcdFTUzSbzSaI06fAj1xISpWgG/Om6/HhG+4TskB6dWpv 2scA3lxsM7cQw5D+3gzV5WVbh4+J1lAgRKoTSoE4Z7sxsP8lqoz8CNWXmZfxX+/qgRpC bOPbmxXk+Ve+pyKvu4NkZVjONX2WHCWJ3Q+pxLVQz3YIJVVFM60OF1V1P1Og6dNxL3OH YAiL8VO6BR4Gbfo6ZFTSlPZeOywP6qgLEK8zQvssbrJEaGn5RxFkLJbRbh++kHpthaLv z63KxaQd7ItosbbksnewEp/i0p4UPVWy9oi1IuN88S2zS9w+jjlKRTZaFjNXpeuYX1yp jAhw== X-Received: by 10.180.105.65 with SMTP id gk1mr15233391wib.12.1392673509085; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:45:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([89.157.44.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f7sm40003144wjb.7.2014.02.17.13.45.07 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:45:08 -0800 (PST) From: Gordon Lennox Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:45:04 +0100 To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/Cfvbfv33rSXC2IIYR0ljrvVLIvw Subject: [Internetgovtech] EU HLIG in London X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:45:15 -0000 I keep hearing bits and pieces about members of the EU's HLIG (High = Level Internet Group) being in London on the Monday for some special = meeting with the IETF. Indeed this was mentioned around their meeting in Brussels. "As many members expressed the wish to get to know better the IETF, the = Commission has been in discussions with the IETF in order to organise a = special session of seminars for HLIG members and the possibility to = attend some technical meetings during the next IETF, to be held in March = in London. HLIG members are asked to signal their desire for the = Commission to organise such a meeting." = http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=3DgroupDetail.grou= pDetailDoc&id=3D10807&no=3D1 "The Group welcomed the Commission's intention to facilitate the IETF = organise a special session of seminars for HLIG members and the = possibility to attend some technical meetings during the next IETF, to = be held in March (2-7 March, exact date to be decided) in London. HLIG = members also signalled their willingness that IETF members are invited = again during HLIG meetings." = http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=3DgroupDetail.grou= pDetailDoc&id=3D10808&no=3D2 May I ask if such a special meeting is taking place? Is it a closed meeting? Or is it open to others at the IETF? Indeed is = it open to officials from other governments? Regards, Gordon From nobody Tue Feb 18 04:07:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB031A0488 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:07:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w9dAoEnySy4I for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:07:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0150.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4160F1A0486 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:07:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from BN1PR06MB392.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.60.154) by BN1PR06MB391.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.60.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.878.16; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:07:17 +0000 Received: from BN1PR06MB392.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.175]) by BN1PR06MB392.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.175]) with mapi id 15.00.0878.008; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:07:16 +0000 From: Sally Wentworth To: Gordon Lennox Thread-Topic: [Internetgovtech] EU HLIG in London Thread-Index: AQHPLCmO3GFzrefJt0afKSrEdCRWrJq665oA Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:07:16 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [174.102.24.52] x-forefront-prvs: 0126A32F74 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019001)(6009001)(377454003)(129404003)(51704005)(24454002)(199002)(189002)(86362001)(83716003)(76482001)(74366001)(66066001)(87266001)(80022001)(65816001)(94946001)(85306002)(87936001)(81542001)(93136001)(2656002)(15975445006)(94316002)(82746002)(81342001)(77096001)(53806001)(63696002)(47446002)(54356001)(95416001)(95666001)(59766001)(74876001)(69226001)(33656001)(47736001)(93516002)(15202345003)(56776001)(50986001)(80976001)(83322001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(54316002)(81816001)(90146001)(56816005)(76786001)(76796001)(36756003)(4396001)(49866001)(15974865002)(79102001)(31966008)(46102001)(47976001)(77982001)(51856001)(92726001)(92566001)(85852003)(83072002)(74502001)(81686001)(74706001)(74662001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR06MB391; H:BN1PR06MB392.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:174.102.24.52; FPR:F9FAF53F.ADD19611.4ADF7FA3.44E4D941.20341; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <79B9A41832CD5143B44F9792134E3CB1@namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/Vbp7Zmb93fysB60Ex2rgsTMu7Ww Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] EU HLIG in London X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:07:24 -0000 Hi Gordon,=20 ISOC has been hosting a small group of policymakers from all over the world= to various IETF meetings since 2012 so this is nothing new (there's info a= bout this on our website and it has been mentioned during plenaries and in = the journal). The program provides a bit of a "tour" of the IETF - how it= works, key areas of focus, etc. Given the interest of the EU's HLIG in knowing more about the IETF and how = things work, we suggested that they could take advantage of the IETF meetin= g taking place in London and attend for a day or so. Should some HLIG mem= bers choose to do so, they could join up with ISOC's policy program if they= like. Internally, the HLIG has seemed to call this an HLIG meeting at th= e IETF but that this their own wording. Hope this helps to clarify.=20 Sally Sally Wentworth Senior Director, Strategic Public Policy Internet Society=20 +1 703 439 2146 wentworth@isoc.org www.isoc.org On Feb 17, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Gordon Lennox wro= te: > I keep hearing bits and pieces about members of the EU's HLIG (High Level= Internet Group) being in London on the Monday for some special meeting wit= h the IETF. >=20 > Indeed this was mentioned around their meeting in Brussels. >=20 > "As many members expressed the wish to get to know better the IETF, the C= ommission has been in discussions with the IETF in order to organise a spec= ial session of seminars for HLIG members and the possibility to attend some= technical meetings during the next IETF, to be held in March in London. HL= IG members are asked to signal their desire for the Commission to organise = such a meeting." >=20 > http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=3DgroupDetail.gro= upDetailDoc&id=3D10807&no=3D1 >=20 > "The Group welcomed the Commission's intention to facilitate the IETF org= anise a special session of seminars for HLIG members and the possibility to= attend some technical meetings during the next IETF, to be held in March (= 2-7 March, exact date to be decided) in London. HLIG members also signalled= their willingness that IETF members are invited again during HLIG meetings= ." >=20 > http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=3DgroupDetail.gro= upDetailDoc&id=3D10808&no=3D2 >=20 > May I ask if such a special meeting is taking place? >=20 > Is it a closed meeting? Or is it open to others at the IETF? Indeed is it= open to officials from other governments? >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Gordon >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech From nobody Mon Feb 24 06:12:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C0D1A0493 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:12:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.531 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, BAYES_999=0.2, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PJgSncy2wfub for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:12:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5DF1A0476 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:12:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [85.159.233.116] (port=54209 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WHwGs-0001Gw-Oy; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:12:39 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:50:56 +0100 To: Steve Crocker ,John Curran From: Jefsey In-Reply-To: <5B2D0D11-544F-456A-A7BE-11B75AA1C31D@shinkuro.com> References: <1a21660d4954433b822ec6573eaa360c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0EB1BE57-4C56-4DC9-ADDD-DB25886382C6@difference.com.au> <99AABCA5-3340-4E3A-AA98-6E0E492DDD71@chambers.gen.nz> <9D4FFC07-EEF1-41FC-AA27-9E6AD9CFA65A@istaff.org> <5B2D0D11-544F-456A-A7BE-11B75AA1C31D@shinkuro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietfa.amsl.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/AmUe64Mlz6BWIJqpmZj8zg2oYnQ Cc: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com, "discuss@1net.org" , uicg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] [discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:12:43 -0000 At 12:59 24/02/2014, Steve Crocker wrote: >John, et al, >There is work underway to bring the GAC earlier into the policy >development process so their input is available during and not just >after the PDP concludes. What is surprising is that the BoD, during its september meeting, when it planned its /1net strategy, did not planned a way to involve the GAC in the Sao Paulo preparation. Sao Paulo may lead (directly or indirectly - in particular when considering figures in Elisabeth Blanconil's list - to a new vision by the States of their involvement both through the GAC and IGF and to concentrate their cyber issues at the UNGA layer (the well established governments MS intergovernance). This might show the limits of a VGNIC at relating with sovereign entities (them being public as States, or private as TNCs). This is what PDT is documenting. The VGNICS/HomeRoot experimentation is for us a way to experiment the grassroots MS possibility and role in that evolution. I note that Brazil is the second leader in ICANN top zone name servers. Germany equals Brazil due to its own ORSN systems. It will be interesting to see other VGNICs develop may be from less ICANN priviledged countries or less connected ones. Also, Elisabeth, it would be interesting to have the break down by connected users and population of each country. jfc From nobody Mon Feb 24 06:43:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02DE1A08A2 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:43:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.5 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zxkiGAbBx-c4 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:43:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C991A089F for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 06:43:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-108-45-30-69.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([108.45.30.69] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WHwkG-0002mD-Tg; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:43:00 +0000 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 108.45.30.69 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+oYbm3I5xB9JlHpRR+2Lko Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: John Curran In-Reply-To: <20140224141328.19DF7A5F636@mail-13-ewr.dyndns.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:42:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1a21660d4954433b822ec6573eaa360c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0EB1BE57-4C56-4DC9-ADDD-DB25886382C6@difference.com.au> <99AABCA5-3340-4E3A-AA98-6E0E492DDD71@chambers.gen.nz> <9D4FFC07-EEF1-41FC-AA27-9E6AD9CFA65A@istaff.org> <5B2D0D11-544F-456A-A7BE-11B75AA1C31D@shinkuro.com> <20140224141328.19DF7A5F636@mail-13-ewr.dyndns.com> To: Jefsey X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/tM4pNMekVtl9fuSvTGAsngNc-3k Cc: Steve Crocker , internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com, "discuss@1net.org" , uicg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] [discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:43:06 -0000 On Feb 24, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Jefsey wrote: > At 12:59 24/02/2014, Steve Crocker wrote: >> John, et al, >> There is work underway to bring the GAC earlier into the policy = development process so their input is available during and not just = after the PDP concludes. >=20 > What is surprising is that the BoD, during its september meeting, when = it planned its /1net strategy, did not planned a way to involve the GAC = in the Sao Paulo preparation. > ... Jefsey -=20 =20 The above sentence _might_ have made sense if you had said 'to involve = the GAC=20 in the Coalition (1net) preparation" (since that appears to be the = purpose of=20 the Internet Coordination resolution), but: 1) that was not necessary = since the resolution was directing the CEO to work with other organizations to = assess if even having some form of coalition made sense, and 2) the concept of = Sao Paulo=20 almost certainly did not exist at the time, since if it had, it would = have=20 been discussed two weeks later and been part of the Montevideo = Statement. (in any case, the NetMundial has a quite direct = government engagement process, including a "Council of Governmental Advisors" = which will welcome all government representatives interested to participate = and=20 contribute to the meeting.) Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. =20 From nobody Mon Feb 24 09:32:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C38C1A0193 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:28:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KehrpR0GhkYn for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:28:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [64.170.98.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A8661A022B for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:28:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c9a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9CE9A02F1; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:27:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c9a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5PvFjcNXCBjs; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:27:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-173-79-206-43.washdc.fios.verizon.net [173.79.206.43]) by c9a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C47AA02E7; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:27:40 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: IAB Chair In-Reply-To: <530921E3.7060005@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:28:45 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <53066F72.6080809@cisco.com> <53078600.3090104@cisco.com> <53086568.7050707@cisco.com> <3FFD6830-DC12-4707-AE2B-0FE1F251B198@vigilsec.com> <530921E3.7060005@cisco.com> To: IETF Announce X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/6nWFsHwE3VO6dXp1lUV8xbjDK1c X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:32:30 -0800 Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: [Internetgovtech] Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter Registries X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:28:50 -0000 Existing IETF and IAB consensus concerning Internet registry functions and IANA are documented in a variety of RFCs and IAB communications [RFC2860,RFC6220,IAB1,IAB2]. Since registry functions and IANA are likely to be the subject of discussion in a number of venues outside the IETF over the coming months and years, the IAB is seeking community feedback about operating principles to use when they find themselves involved in those discussions. While dealing with these issues the IAB has consistently approached the issues from a set of (implicit) principles. Since the registry = functions are subject of discussion in various fora, the IAB has tried to make these operating principles explicit and seeks to confirm these with the community. The IAB are planning to use part of the time in the IGOVUPDATE session = at IETF 89 (6 March 2014, 17:00-18:30 GMT) for a discussion of such = operating principles. But we wanted to kick-start that discussion with a few thoughts about principles that the IAB and IETF have articulated in various documents already and some that have emerged over time but may not have been written down. What we are interested in is an = articulation of what the IETF community values. What other parties (ICANN, RIRs, governments, etc.) value when they think about registry functions is interesting, but we want to focus this discussion on the IETF and not those other parties. This is a first cut of making the principles more explicit for which we seek your views. Some of these might seem a bit generic, but it is difficult to predict the nature of future discussions in which IETF and IAB leaders might = find themselves, so generality helps in that regard. On behalf of the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D Principles Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter = Registries 1. The IETF protocol parameters function has been and continues to be capably provided by the Internet community. The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within the Internet community are both important given how critical protocol parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF protocols. We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameters function needs be strong enough that they can be offered independently by the Internet community, without the need for backing from external parties. And we believe we largely are there already, although the system can be strengthened further, and continuous improvements are being made. 2. The administration of the protocol parameters function by ICANN is working well for the Internet and the IETF. We are pleased with the publication and maintenance of the protocol parameter function and the coordination of the evaluation of registration requests through the IANA function provided by ICANN. 3. The IETF protocol parameters function requires openness, transparency, and accountability. Existing documentation of how the function is administered and overseen is good [RFC2860,RFC6220], but further articulation and clarity may be beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet community can understand how the function works, and that the processes for registering parameters and holding those who oversee the protocol parameter function accountable for following those processes are understood by all interested parties. We are committed to making improvements here if necessary. 4. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameters function should use the current RFCs and model as the starting point. The protocol parameters function is working well, and as a result wholesale changes to the role of the IETF vis a vis the function are not warranted. The IETF/IANA Memorandum of Understanding [RFC2860] is a good model to work from in the event that other parties do want to = contemplate changes. Put quite simply: evolution, not revolution. 5. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service by=20 Internet registries. The stability of the Internet depends on capable provision of not just IETF protocol parameters, but IP numbers, domain names, and other registries. Furthermore, DNS and IPv4/IPv6 are IETF-defined protocols. Thus we expect the role of the IETF in standards development, = architectural guidance, and allocation of certain name/number parameters to continue. IP multicast addresses and special-use DNS names are two examples where close coordination is needed. The IETF will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and other parties that are mutually invested in the continued smooth operation of the Internet registries. We fully understand the need to work together. 6. The IETF will continue its direction and stewardship of the protocol parameters function as an integral component of the IETF standards process and the use of resulting protocols. RFC 6220 specifies the role and function of the protocol parameters registry, which is critical to IETF standards processes and IETF protocols. We see no need to revisit or reconsider our current approach with regard to protocol parameters, including the ability to delegate operational responsibility for registries to other organizations. [RFC2860] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2860.txt [RFC6220] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6220.txt [IAB1] = http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/2009-06-08-IAB-NTIA-NOI-= final.pdf [IAB2] = http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf From nobody Mon Feb 24 13:58:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B781A02B5; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:58:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.153 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ntYFor6X6uRm; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:58:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485461A0185; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:58:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.232.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1OLw7Fp000581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:58:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1393279100; bh=56nnl1vvQa+6+kyeG9n5SJdG2PQfDrcrrGjgpdPbpRo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=awzBS7dCbdkuM0bZp46E8/KnVxvCwJgPWJDCPR5UY8/MO7RMzQ8OSszZxwKYnwizC hJk9UAK9lgYx6K2Mz89GA2lLlLsSi6EaHV7qDE5H9TbP+6Bc7rhJyz6TCAgmieFidT kZkboE+4oAc9MHRQwclp2UVNQutdPu3d9q0SDe8A= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1393279100; i=@elandsys.com; bh=56nnl1vvQa+6+kyeG9n5SJdG2PQfDrcrrGjgpdPbpRo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=hH3Jyps+3SybBN3/GVosSNJaJbewDySoNa/aoy7Jtiqce2tqM6lFnOfxKdhfZHzJs exX4MqDlmqJFFpLVU1lEUPdrhU4cnnaSPKEM6/dIn7b6ixH6gMNYSVtM7+uMmRDR7t 72gmXI7IC6Fg+LlJO/S12gkymC/sOAIdKdvhbbCc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140224111423.0ce2a3a0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:42:54 -0800 To: IAB Chair From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <53066F72.6080809@cisco.com> <53078600.3090104@cisco.com> <53086568.7050707@cisco.com> <3FFD6830-DC12-4707-AE2B-0FE1F251B198@vigilsec.com> <530921E3.7060005@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/7QzOXJOtVLQaefoaoio91eF8rLU Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter Registries X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:58:25 -0000 Hi Russ, First of all, I would like to thank the IAB for=20 requesting feedback before taking a position. At 09:28 24-02-2014, IAB Chair wrote: >Existing IETF and IAB consensus concerning Internet registry functions >and IANA are documented in a variety of RFCs and IAB communications >[RFC2860,RFC6220,IAB1,IAB2]. Since registry functions and IANA are >likely to be the subject of discussion in a number of venues outside the >IETF over the coming months and years, the IAB is seeking community >feedback about operating principles to use when they find themselves >involved in those discussions. I suggest adding RFC 3172 to the above list of RFCs. >=3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D > >Principles Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter Registries > >1. The IETF protocol parameters function has been and continues to be >capably provided by the Internet community. > >The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within the >Internet community are both important given how critical protocol >parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF protocols. > >We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameters function >needs be strong enough that they can be offered independently by the >Internet community, without the need for backing from external parties. >And we believe we largely are there already, although the system can be >strengthened further, and continuous improvements are being made. > >2. The administration of the protocol parameters function by ICANN is >working well for the Internet and the IETF. > >We are pleased with the publication and maintenance of the protocol >parameter function and the coordination of the evaluation of >registration requests through the IANA function provided by ICANN. I suggest not mentioning Point 2. >3. The IETF protocol parameters function requires openness, >transparency, and accountability. > >Existing documentation of how the function is administered and overseen >is good [RFC2860,RFC6220], but further articulation and clarity may be >beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet community can >understand how the function works, and that the processes for >registering parameters and holding those who oversee the protocol >parameter function accountable for following those processes are >understood by all interested parties. We are committed to making >improvements here if necessary. > >4. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameters function should >use the current RFCs and model as the starting point. > >The protocol parameters function is working well, and as a result >wholesale changes to the role of the IETF vis a vis the function are not >warranted. The IETF/IANA Memorandum of Understanding [RFC2860] is a good >model to work from in the event that other parties do want to contemplate >changes. Put quite simply: evolution, not revolution. If I am not mistaken the stated position has been=20 that the protocol parameters registry is an IETF=20 matter. I would suggest caution before even=20 considering any contemplated=20 changes. Evolution tends to have unintended consequences. :-) >5. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service by >Internet registries. > >The stability of the Internet depends on capable provision of not just >IETF protocol parameters, but IP numbers, domain names, and other >registries. Furthermore, DNS and IPv4/IPv6 are IETF-defined protocols. >Thus we expect the role of the IETF in standards development, architectural >guidance, and allocation of certain name/number parameters to continue. >IP multicast addresses and special-use DNS names are two examples where >close coordination is needed. The IETF will continue to coordinate with >ICANN, the RIRs, and other parties that are mutually invested in the >continued smooth operation of the Internet registries. We fully >understand the need to work together. > >6. The IETF will continue its direction and stewardship of the protocol >parameters function as an integral component of the IETF standards >process and the use of resulting protocols. The word "stewardship" has been overused for a while. According to RFC= 6220: "the IETF asserts authority and responsibility for the management of all of its protocol parameters and their registries, even while it generally remains isolated from the selection of particular values once a registration is approved." Point 6 might sent the wrong message. >RFC 6220 specifies the role and function of the protocol parameters >registry, which is critical to IETF standards processes and IETF >protocols. We see no need to revisit or reconsider our current approach >with regard to protocol parameters, including the ability to delegate >operational responsibility for registries to other organizations. The responses to the NOIs mention "IANA Functions". From the ICANN bylaws: "The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular" "1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are" "c. Protocol port and parameter numbers." The above is inconsistent with what is written in=20 RFC 6220. According to an (old) contract (=20 http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-contract-17mar03-en.htm= ): "C.2.1.1 DoC NTIA has a requirement for a Contractor to maintain the operation of the Internet by performing the IANA functions. In= performance of this purchase order, the Contractor shall=20 furnish the necessary personnel, material, equipment, services, and facilities=20 (except as otherwise specified), to perform the following IANA requirements." "C.2.1.1.1 Coordinate the assignment of technical protocol parameters =96 This function involves the review and assignment of unique values= to various parameters (e.g., operation codes, port numbers, object identifiers, protocol numbers) used in various Internet protocols. This function also includes the=20 dissemination of the listings of assigned parameters through various means (including on-line publication) and= the review of technical documents for consistency with assigned values." It wopuld be good if the IETF considers the above=20 as it is inconsistent which its stated position. Regards, S. Moonesamy=20 From nobody Mon Feb 24 14:42:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1281A0306; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:42:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gENf3OqH_8ic; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:42:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9631A02FE; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:42:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id y10so3704818pdj.1 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:42:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q3aPi13hOHKiTD99QC1LYUgEF5FsV24w9NMbvWe4MyU=; b=OXffg1wrm2YCh6sSKz/nz6UYNFn+s6JVy0NEvdv3dW4v4KXrQsk8Y9jBILYHICp9XQ dD63jlbVF9O+tAsakvt72FI+uvlc4nz+E/M0UxY+DXssNHIbttEcHQ6x0P1mLreZ/YSt GfTVuEGU2Lun1x4XSDuy2PUuhefU98lcwJOLqCrW4YQayRPoKomuC1smLWu2YGl2S7xZ YpgyQnhtrLSQuVAPazU+1a6MeWTnoqHEYUV+B9SixncuX6HBvYm5J+ZL1XUFIHJxt9Sq u5RPxg29tGJwPlQtaZyyYXVaD+W9cQGTbM3OGS2bDKjd9QQYd0OsXVEYx7KHrbkf3F4x OP3Q== X-Received: by 10.66.163.2 with SMTP id ye2mr27676720pab.110.1393281721984; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:42:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.23] (129.201.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.201.129]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id os1sm128662850pac.20.2014.02.24.14.42.00 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:42:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <530BCAB8.2090501@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:42:00 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IAB Chair References: <53066F72.6080809@cisco.com> <53078600.3090104@cisco.com> <53086568.7050707@cisco.com> <3FFD6830-DC12-4707-AE2B-0FE1F251B198@vigilsec.com> <530921E3.7060005@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140224111423.0ce2a3a0@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140224111423.0ce2a3a0@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/Rra69Wg0_4kALWnBq8Ilf5G9zxY Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Guiding the Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter Registries X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 22:42:04 -0000 On 25/02/2014 08:42, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Russ, > > First of all, I would like to thank the IAB for requesting feedback > before taking a position. Agreed. My feedback is that I support the text as written. I'm sure some small improvements can be made, but IMHO it's good enough already. Brian From nobody Tue Feb 25 01:21:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23C251A0654 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:21:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.723 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.723 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_SMALL=2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G5z1x7U2jnIx for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:21:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773FE1A03EA for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:21:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id to1so75957ieb.30 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:21:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jNSrT08yHzrd/y3GbH6a6r/4ztX0P90C8CayZ/yDaP4=; b=0EzGcG3PxKN0y+f+HL8q7oNp59F7yAqlw+Ev0yJlASh8gq1ei9lTKeXjlczZ0iMrOE HwvCfjbvLnRLqihp1P0lX+f6m+gmYmU8oL0DAQ3nxfwep5D1qEOEVFL5VMCWBFxpR7d/ +GSJ0wiXFgK+2dOriTEbhI6mUqTH6TLA2NX49rBlnUbX/0ra3AdaywTQCQK7bZ0I1a0d CsJ80xSxq816p7cqnzARa2CMQ1oGxF/kBPgFAN9GOSq1its4JwW6LujQXViSPF5JOnyV apUx/ppwTEAGDKcKZeyONjBOIz4TP5Rld9oNfIML8UT+qtOax9/UI2XL5UNfZgs11Fcy 8xEA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.253.70 with SMTP id zy6mr18561988igc.28.1393320063555; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:21:03 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:21:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140213103950.0d888180@resistor.net> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140213103950.0d888180@resistor.net> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:21:03 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xcnMF6OxDDPuGUYJrvacgOF5h3Q Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: S Moonesamy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113475f472614d04f3379b17 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/gWehI0iNV5BLFz_aEbYKnW5baL0 Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , Eliot Lear Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] A "healthy" or a "secure" internet (was: US Government response to the European Commission statement) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:21:06 -0000 --001a113475f472614d04f3379b17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear SM, all, sorry for the belated replies. Increased workload + health issues in the family. On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:58 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Andrea, > At 09:47 13-02-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > >> I think that the notion of "growing" can be defined in a way that would >> not be very much open to debate. But how do we define what is a "healthy" >> or a "secure" Internet? >> > > Credits to Detlef Bosau for the following: > > "But you will agree: WHEN you are interested in scientific questions, > don't > ask students or professors, but ask a kid." > > To answer the first (quoted) question I would ask the person what he or > she considers as a "healthy" or a "secure" internet. > The first step in any conversation which aims to be productive for all parties is to make sure there is a common understanding of the terms of the discussion (but see my PS below) At a certain point, however, it becomes rather cumbersome to check each and every time what each term means. That's not how social systems work. Coming to the IETF, I think I have a rather good idea of what this community considers to be a "secure" Internet. I'm less sure there is a shared understanding of what "healthy" means. Hence my question. Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro PS: actually, there can be cases in which it is actually productive and perfectly logical (although not very sustainable) for each party to make sure that each word has a different meaning, in order to be able to later claim that there was an agreement, but also that what was concluded has the specific meaning each party wants it to have. I understand this sounds like anathema to a specification-setting body, but it does happen in many walks of life, from romantic relationships to global political negotiations. Anyway, I don't want to digress. ;) --001a113475f472614d04f3379b17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear SM, all,

sorry for the belated replies. Increa= sed workload + health issues in the family.
<= br>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:58 PM, S Moonesamy = <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
Hi Andrea,
At 09:47 13-02-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
I think that the notion of "growing" can be defined in a way that= would not be very much open to debate. But how do we define what is a &quo= t;healthy" or a "secure" Internet?

Credits to Detlef Bosau for the following:

=A0 "But you will agree: WHEN you are interested in scientific questio= ns, don't
=A0 =A0ask students or professors, but ask a kid."

To answer the first (quoted) question I would ask the person what he or she= considers as a "healthy" or a "secure" internet.

The first step in any conversation which aim= s to be productive for all parties is to make sure there is a common unders= tanding of the terms of the discussion (but see my PS below)

At a certain point, however, it becomes rather cumbersome to= check each and every time what each term means. That's not how social = systems work.

Coming to the IETF, I think I have a rathe= r good idea of what this community considers to be a "secure" Int= ernet. I'm less sure there is a shared understanding of what "heal= thy" means.

Hence my question.

Best,

Andrea
=

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agre= e with myself. Keep it in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https:= //www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro

PS: actually, there can be cases in wh= ich it is actually productive=20 and perfectly logical (although not very sustainable) for each party to mak= e sure that each word has a=20 different meaning, in order to be able to=20 later claim that there was an agreement, but also that what was concluded h= as the specific meaning each party=20 wants it to have. I understand this sounds like anathema to a=20 specification-setting body, but it does happen in many walks of life,=20 from romantic relationships to global political negotiations. Anyway, I don= 't want to=20 digress. ;)
--001a113475f472614d04f3379b17-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 01:31:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E251A0669 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:31:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.423 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fa88hebg0iMQ for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:31:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC0B1A0654 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:31:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ar20so79563iec.25 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:31:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xOvLAak2S8e6Pio1P0UsSP6VHeIl0+PGI9V4q+ZApfM=; b=xv60ybe2dUZKOsADPitaLVMe51wf15oP2BLPt4Cg4VZAyqDPiS58TL5cI/ZMcW8oe+ iPY247PoUF5XrHlGn/lRE94AtvOCibF9cy/lihw4pcSzKNzMZjLmwW93I8fyT7JXEYMp Ww8MDg4wibjDnndKWaPIzXjd7YJdPZNetdHeVLJBy7H5vjN7qw96aTja7LExk5CxOsf2 38w4XvfxO/XuxashHd2NY/+DR2JDwqINYaJxcJkIqO2S8iWPBzb8mrwnVoYeredfJWVt 6XpCSVvKJABVo9vfpSkH17RDZfP7OAwnXJmgoHhXod8v8AcNv6WH17nHV4E3V1p52S/3 2spg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.51.17.40 with SMTP id gb8mr2152348igd.18.1393320688224; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:31:28 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:31:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52FD2A19.9040006@cisco.com> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> <52FD2A19.9040006@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:31:28 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Q5yk47_P4uCcLjpHm7wpM-Up85Y Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c2e2ae13df04f337c069 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/0ixcmMnFf9pQnTOiObSUtfYZSOg Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:31:32 -0000 --001a1134c2e2ae13df04f337c069 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Eliot, dear all, sorry for the delay (yadda-yadda-work-yadda-health etc) On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > Again, speaking only for myself. > > On 2/13/14, 6:47 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > I think that the notion of "growing" can be defined in a way that > > would not be very much open to debate. But how do we define what is a > > "healthy" or a "secure" Internet? > > These are of course subjective terms. Healthy to me is one where the > Internet can effectively and safely serve the needs of its users. In > the context of the IETF and for purposes of this discussion, let's keep > it bounded to providing interoperable connectivity at ever increasing > scale, in a manner in which links are used efficiently and with some > notion of fairness (that is to say, two competing applications will gain > roughly the same share of a link, all other things being equal. This > includes transport mechanisms such as TCP, UDP, and SCTP; the addressing > and routing systems, which are tightly bound together, as well as > auto-configuration (a'la DHCP) and the like. Examples of unhealthy > would be if the routing system were injured in some way. Policy can > have an impact on that, by the way. Again, scoping this to IETF > matters, "secure", to me, means confidentiality, authenticity, and > integrity of communications are maintained. Security can be impacted by > many policy aspects Imagine, for example, a government mandating > implementation and use of broken encryption. > > > > > > I also find it interesting - and I absolutely don't mean to be > > flippant - that you use the term "externality" to refer to "government > > interactions", mostly because in economics externalities can be > > positive or negative. You seem to assume (or I think you seem to > > assume) that any interaction with governments generates a negative > > externality (although you do say below that policy can be an > > "inhibitor or an enabler"). > > And indeed I agree there are both positive and negative externalities. > Ok, then I had misunderstood - apologies. > We can't forget that it was a government that first funded this great > project, and many governments have devoted and talented people who have > worked at the technical level to scale the network. This is indeed true, but I would add that many governments / public authorities have also played / are also playing a role outside the "technical level", for example by designing public procurement systems to promote IPv6, working on legislation to foster Internet adoption, etc. (I'm sure lots of people, myself included, could come up with examples of public interventions which went in the opposite direction. My aim here is simply to point out that "technology" does not live in a vacuum. I think we actually agree violently on this) > We just held a > workshop on Internet Technology Adoption and Transition (ITAT) in which > researchers presented a bundling model that takes into account both > positive and negative externalities.[1,2] I was hoping I could read all the papers of this interesting workshop, but this intention was quickly filed into the "wishful thinking" category. I'm looking forward to a summary / report, which I understand will be published soon-ish. > On the other hand, in a > government context there is the possibility of linkage to issues where > the "good" is quite opaque, and quite frankly I have seen this linkage > in action, and it is not pretty. The merits (if any) of the work are > lost. Here I am intrigued. It's one thing to say "this [ legislation | policy | ... ] will decrease broadband adoption / break DNSSEC / screw up global routing efficiency". These things are more or less measurable. But I really don't understand what you mean by referring to the "possibility of linkage to issues where the 'good' is quite opaque". This is why I support the OpenStand principles > (www.open-stand.org), and why I think everyone should. > I know the principles but I don't immediately see the link between them and the possibility of "linkage" you mention above (probably because I'm not entirely clear about what this "linkage" actually is). Ciao, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --001a1134c2e2ae13df04f337c069 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Eliot, dear all,

sorry for the dela= y (yadda-yadda-work-yadda-health etc)

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cis= co.com> wrote:
Hi Andrea,

Again, speaking only for myself.

On 2/13/14, 6:47 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:

> I think that the notion of "growing" can be defined in a way= that
> would not be very much open to debate. But how do we define what is a<= br> > "healthy" or a "secure" Internet?

These are of course subjective terms. =A0Healthy to me is one where t= he
Internet can effectively and safely serve the needs of its users. =A0In
the context of the IETF and for purposes of this discussion, let's keep=
it bounded to providing interoperable connectivity at ever increasing
scale, in a manner in which links are used efficiently and with some
notion of fairness (that is to say, two competing applications will gain roughly the same share of a link, all other things being equal. =A0This
includes transport mechanisms such as TCP, UDP, and SCTP; the addressing and routing systems, which are tightly bound together, as well as
auto-configuration (a'la DHCP) and the like. =A0Examples of unhealthy would be if the routing system were injured in some way. =A0Policy can
have an impact on that, by the way. =A0Again, scoping this to IETF
matters, "secure", to me, means confidentiality, authenticity, an= d
integrity of communications are maintained. =A0Security can be impacted by<= br> many policy aspects Imagine, for example, a government mandating
implementation and use of broken encryption.


<= /div>
=A0

>
> I also find it interesting - and I absolutely don't mean to be
> flippant - that you use the term "externality" to refer to &= quot;government
> interactions", mostly because in economics externalities can be > positive or negative. You seem to assume (or I think you seem to
> assume) that any interaction with governments generates a negative
> externality (although you do say below that policy can be an
> "inhibitor or an enabler").

And indeed I agree there are both positive and negative externalities= .

Ok, then I had misunderstood - apolog= ies.
=A0
We can't forget that it was a government that first funded this great project, and many governments have devoted and talented people who have
worked at the technical level to scale the network. =A0
This is indeed true, but I would add that many governments / p= ublic authorities
have also played / are also playing a role outside th= e "technical level", for
example by designing public procurement systems to promote IPv6, workingon legislation to foster Internet adoption, etc.

(I'= m sure lots of people, myself included, could come up with examples of
public interventions which went in the opposite direction. My ai= m here is
simply to point out that "technology" does not live = in a vacuum. I think we
actually agree violently on this)
=A0
We just held a
workshop on Internet Technology Adoption and Transition (ITAT) in which
researchers presented a bundling model that takes into account both
positive and negative externalities.[1,2] =A0

I was hoping I could read all the papers of this interesting workshop, b= ut
this intention was quickly filed into the "wishful thinking"= ; category. I'm
looking forward to a summary / report, which I understand will be published=
soon-ish.
=A0
On the = other hand, in a
government context there is the possibility of linkage to issues where
the "good" is quite opaque, and quite frankly I have seen this li= nkage
in action, and it is not pretty. =A0The merits (if any) of the work are
lost. =A0

Here I am intrigued. It's one= thing to say "this [ legislation | policy | ... ]
will = decrease broadband adoption / break DNSSEC / screw up global
routing eff= iciency". These things are more or less measurable.

But I really don't understand what you mean by referring= to the "possibility
of linkage to issues where the 'good' = is quite opaque".

This is why I support the OpenStand principles
(www.open-stand.org= ), and why I think everyone should.

I know the principles but I don't immediately see the link between the= m and
the possibility of "linkage" you mention above (probab= ly because I'm not
entirely clear about what this "linkage"= ; actually is).

Ciao,

Andrea

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with= myself. Keep it in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www= .facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--001a1134c2e2ae13df04f337c069-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 01:48:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769E21A0667 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:48:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.423 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VXFlQeDpRO1U for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:48:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x233.google.com (mail-ie0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295741A0674 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:48:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id to1so91803ieb.24 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:48:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qp6SFb+hRpO8B2EDgc9FAlQInw7DCs9kjNlpZ2AnbFY=; b=c+87mYEl+c8H/wtWEcyzpbfp58Bdcz4roKz6cFQbwcbWjOuTWAQUgO+xdHJUeaBizd jVUCAMpEjlrTKCrduTC9fIxoGXYpZJthy/ZrYVMA0zRGkUTYT8dBcvOcKt3NxznbcGJR iSmRoiONpjtwtom+6UX33AD+BymPE7JkU1oGvCV7v/c7Gs5eftkrYUhjHZas9yqwJY0H P7zQxJVxYEYQgXJaz0XF9c0IoVGNPB5K9sbGqxJME9txnc3lPZf8lOrtFucMvLswtzLp z3I3SNmfoEY1WR53EAELNZXObMKK0W6BgKfTrnhohOsI1vTqt85WxCRZKOMKV2yTudCE 09sQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.51.17.40 with SMTP id gb8mr2229945igd.18.1393321728361; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:48:48 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 01:48:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52FD9183.8090101@gmail.com> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FD9183.8090101@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:48:48 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vlmGGrXKJIFg1o-fnAsXspk5bs4 Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: Brian E Carpenter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c2e2ad50d004f337febc Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/i8aApnREZ2RPhkNBmBkQg9nCI5Y Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:48:51 -0000 --001a1134c2e2ad50d004f337febc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Brian, dear all, (sorry for the belated reaction - work + health + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE ). On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > Andrea, > > I can't speak for Christian, but I would like to comment > on these points. > Sure - thanks for the comments. > On 14/02/2014 06:35, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > First, you seem to take the position that the only role for public > > authorities should be to avoid abuse of dominant positions / market power > > (including, I assume, via cartels) in the definition of standards. > > That is IMHO certainly the most useful thing a public authority can do > (as the EC took the lead in Europe in telco demonopolisation in the past). > I understand. I think there can be an important role in stimulating new technologies; > I suspect that EC actions had more than a little effect in stimulating > GSM for example, and that required stimulating multivendor standards > of course. > Just to be clear - the stimulation of new technologies does not only pass through competition policy (fight against abuses of dominant positions, cartels etc). In fact, it might require forms of intervention which some parties might consider to be an undue alteration of the "market" and in some cases even anti-competitive. So there is often a fine line to walk here. > But when there is already a very healthy and vigorous open voluntary > standards body in place, I don't see what value a public authority > can add. > Well, public authorities are often very important users of technology. So their participation in the definition of the specifications / standards of such technology might actually be useful for later adoption. I also believe that standard setting which does not take into account the broader socio-legal environment in which the relevant technologies will be used is not particularly sustainable. I posit that public authorities are an important - but not the only, and perhaps in some cases not even the primary - source for these broader considerations. Which does not mean, by the way, that public authorities should be in the driving seat (I'm saying this only because I know the usual reaction to the notion I mentioned above is "oh! You want to take-over!" which is not what I, or for that matter the Commission as an official position, want to do). [SNIP] > > Thirdly, you conclude that "local" standards are sub-optimal and that one > > should rather try to make sure that local communities / people / groups > > engage in "global" standards. > > Definitely. In the Internet, local standards are a big waste of > effort. Note: I'm talking about infrastructure. Obviously there is > scope for local entrepreneurship for applications that match a > particular culture or economy. But that shouldn't concern the EU, > should it? > I'm not sure why it shouldn't concern the EU. Care to elaborate? > > Liaisons can and have been established in european context. I remember > >> helping set one up managed by european ISOC chapters with IAB approval > >> after IETF London in 2000 with EU ICT Standards board for example. I > would > >> observe that defining local Standards has ... limited utility as it has > >> scope. > >> > > > > I don't question the usefulness of liaisons, quite the contrary. I'm just > > wondering (honestly - I will not repeat the qualifier again :) if they > are > > sufficient. > > I don't see how to do better. We surely don't need yet more SDOs. > To be clear: I am not suggesting we need a new SDO. But I think it's useful to put very clearly on the table what would be the pros and cons of having one, and this is why I asked the question. However, if there is a shared agreement that more structured and bi-directional dialogues and engagements between the "technical community" and the world of governments / public authorities would be beneficial (and quite frankly I'm not convinced we are there yet) then one can find middle solutions between 'ad hoc' liaisons and new, full-blown SDOs. Ciao, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --001a1134c2e2ad50d004f337febc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Brian, dear all,

(sorry for the bel= ated reaction - work + health + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DJFvujknrBuE ).

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Brian E Car= penter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
Andrea,

I can't speak for Christian, but I would like to comment
on these points.

Sure - thanks for the = comments.
=A0
On 14/02/2014 06:35, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
=A0
> First, you seem to take the position that the only role for public
> authorities should be to avoid abuse of dominant positions / market po= wer
> (including, I assume, via cartels) in the definition of standards.

That is IMHO certainly the most useful thing a public authority can d= o
(as the EC took the lead in Europe in telco demonopolisation in the past).<= br>

I understand.

=
I think there can be an important role in stimulating new technologies;
I suspect that EC actions had more than a little effect in stimulating
GSM for example, and that required stimulating multivendor standards
of course.

Just to be clear - the stimu= lation of new technologies does not only pass
through competition policy= (fight against abuses of dominant positions,
cartels etc). In fact, it = might require forms of intervention which some
parties might consider to be an undue alteration of the "market" = and in
some cases even anti-competitive.

So there is o= ften a fine line to walk here.
=A0
But when there is already a very healthy and vigorous open voluntary
standards body in place, I don't see what value a public authority
can add.
=A0
Well, public authorities ar= e often very important users of technology. So
their particip= ation in the definition of the specifications / standards of such
techno= logy might actually be useful for later adoption.

I also believe that standard setting which does not take int= o account the
broader socio-legal environment in which the relevant tech= nologies will
be used is not particularly sustainable. I posit that publ= ic authorities are
an important - but not the only, and perhaps in some cases not even the
= primary - source for these broader considerations.

Which = does not mean, by the way, that public authorities should be in
the driv= ing seat (I'm saying this only because I know the usual reaction
to the notion I mentioned above is "oh! You want to take-ov= er!" which is
not what I, or for that matter the Commission as an = official position,
want to do).

[SNIP= ]



> Thirdly, you conclude that "local" standards are sub-optimal= and that one
> should rather try to make sure that local communities / people / group= s
> engage in "global" standards.

Definitely. In the Internet, local standards are a big waste of
effort. Note: I'm talking about infrastructure. Obviously there is
scope for local entrepreneurship for applications that match a
particular culture or economy. But that shouldn't concern the EU,
should it?

I'm not sure why it shou= ldn't concern the EU. Care to elaborate?
=A0
> Liaisons can and have been established =A0in european = context. I remember
>> helping set one up managed by european ISOC chapters with IAB appr= oval
>> after IETF London in 2000 with EU ICT Standards board for example.= I would
>> observe that defining local Standards has ... limited utility as i= t has
>> scope.
>>
>
> I don't question the usefulness of liaisons, quite the contrary. I= 'm just
> wondering (honestly - I will not repeat the qualifier again :) if they= are
> sufficient.

I don't see how to do better. We surely don't need yet more S= DOs.

To be clear: I am not suggesting w= e need a new SDO. But I think it's useful
to put very clearly on the= table what would be the pros and cons of having one,
and this is why I asked the question.

However, if there i= s a shared agreement that more structured and bi-directional
dialogues = and engagements between the "technical community" and the world of governments / public authorities would be beneficial (and quite frankly = I'm
not convinced we are there yet) then one can find middle solutio= ns between
'ad hoc' liaisons and new, full-blown SDOs= .

Ciao,

Andrea
--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. = Keep it in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.= com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--001a1134c2e2ad50d004f337febc-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 02:03:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2751A0318 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:03:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.423 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y7Dz4vbQQJW8 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x22e.google.com (mail-ig0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6921A03F1 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y6so7004657igj.1 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:03:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tALMnCx+pHyxkSmyb/RpH5Ghur5B0rI5RU8OV1p0wNU=; b=KzAcd9rVQRyjdbu/Yc0HuILDjO0pj51khfBoZwk4BFAz9GeETcGTocicfaQhp9TL1x gYEUwAfdtWbeK1VQ+Y+Kx+e43GYjnvr3as06ZHKb/ns8112j9fRxhGVnkyWin9DA4JLO U4CvLgpyFix9KZ6SFGscI2w6l/xDSl0LBkcmNIUsVc6E9clfcMIMU7hyxtxjSfZmM3yK IzSQ2OJeVUb/yhOV6QStUSnKgfIDB1cB5QIBUFQITJmdv4+Ifze6S7Mi5gCuGywqFgfg 2Rdg2FJeOOKmdsvtpU85M6mCC6vEHB61PMKG2BoA+SXUI+J06yfKf8Z/5s1xn5iiqmLC 0u/Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.4.2 with SMTP id oa2mr18573516icb.4.1393322614344; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:03:34 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:03:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:03:34 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: oPUR2_uwX1e4eJIl6MGcdDaDvbs Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: Arturo Servin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5014cbd7c513d04f338333c Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/03C089Fw1vRtVYSCp8urhN_j3t0 Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:03:37 -0000 --bcaec5014cbd7c513d04f338333c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Arturo, dear all, On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > Forgot to reply to the list > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Arturo Servin > wrote: > > Andrea, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Andrea Glorioso > > wrote: > > >> Is there a structured mechanism through which the IETF performs this > kind of > >> "efficient mutual interactions", besides participating in mailing lists > and > >> organising workshops from time to time? > > > > It depends of what you define as structured mechanisms, but there are > > efforts from the IESG and the IAB to be more involve in not 100% > > technical activities. > I know some of these efforts (and I think it would be useful to have a complete list of them somewhere, for easier tracking) and I personally commend IESG and IAB people for this. I know by experience that walking in different worlds is a tiring and sometimes very frustrating exercise (it is as much for the technical community when dealing with governments as it is the other way around, believe me). > If this worked, eventually this would be > > something than WG and drafts authors may do. There are some examples > > where, we as technical people try to bring concerns (not just > > operational but policy concerns) to WG to work on better standards. > Such as? (This is not a confrontational question - I'm curious as to what would be your idea of "policy concerns"). > > We need to have a balance between flexible and structured mechanisms. > > Perhaps today we are too flexible but having more structured > > mechanisms does not seem to be a good alternative. > Why not? Too much structure certainly can stifle discussion. But too little structure can easily lead to energy waste, duplication, lack of information, etc. Or to put it another way: I'm not a historian of the IETF but I would be surprised if the *current* structure of the IETF (the way WGs are organised in Areas, the interactions between WG Chairs and Area Directors, the role of the IESG, the various steps and back-and-forths that Internet Drafts have to pass through before moving to the glory of becoming RFCs or BCPs or STDs, if ever...) was exactly the *same* structure of when Steve Crocker wrote his first RFC. (Actually, I know that at the time there was no such thing as the IETF, but I hope you get my point). Structure is just one of the ways in which human beings handle complexity. If we agree that: (1) the world of Internet technologies is becoming more complex, because the Internet has become such a planetary success that it underlies almost all kinds of human transactions for billions people on this planet, and (2) that this introduces the need to take into account other constraints than simply "does this packet get from point A to point B as efficiently as possible", then I fail to see how we can disagree that it would be a good thing to introduce more structured ways (or, if you prefer, more "efficient", "effective", etc) to ensure that cross-constituency dialogue in this "more complex" world truly scales. Of course, we might well disagree on the premises. ;) I have the impression that when I use the term "structure", people - especially in the IETF community - read "laws". That is neither the intended meaning nor a necessity. Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --bcaec5014cbd7c513d04f338333c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Arturo, dear all,

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Arturo Servin <= span dir=3D"ltr"><arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
Forgot to reply to the list


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrea,
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Andrea Glorioso
> <andrea@digitalpolicy.it= > wrote:

=A0
>> Is there a structured mechanism through which the IETF performs th= is kind of
>> "efficient mutual interactions", besides participating i= n mailing lists and
>> organising workshops from time to time?
>
> It depends of what you define as structured mechanisms, but there are<= br> > efforts from the IESG and the IAB to be more involve in not 100%
> technical activities.

I k= now some of these efforts (and I think it would be useful to have a complet= e
list of them somewhere, for easier tracking) and I personally commend = IESG
and IAB people for this. I know by experience that walking in different wor= lds
is a tiring and sometimes very frustrating exercise (it is as much f= or the
technical community when dealing with governments as it is the ot= her way
around, believe me).
=A0
=
If this worked, eventually this wou= ld be
> something than WG and drafts authors may do. There are some examples > where, we as technical people try to bring concerns (not just
> operational but policy concerns) to WG to work on better standards.

Such as? (This is not a confr= ontational question - I'm curious as to what would
be your idea of &= quot;policy concerns").
=A0
> We need to have a balance between flexible and structured mechanisms.<= br> > Perhaps today we are too flexible but having more structured
> mechanisms does not seem to be a good alternative.

Why not? Too much structure certainly can stif= le discussion. But too little
structure can easily lead to energy waste,= duplication, lack of information, etc.

Or to put it another way: I'm not a historian of the IET= F but I would be surprised
if the current structure of= the IETF (the way WGs are organised in Areas, the
interactions between = WG Chairs and Area Directors, the role of the IESG,
the various steps and back-and-forths that Internet Drafts have to pass thr= ough
before moving to the glory of becoming RFCs or BCPs or STDs, if eve= r...) was
exactly the same structure of when Steve Crocker wrote = his first RFC.

(Actually, I know that at the time there was no such thing a= s the IETF, but I
hope you get my point).

S= tructure is just one of the ways in which human beings handle complexity.
If we agree that:

(1) the world of Internet technologies = is becoming more complex,
because the Internet has become suc= h a planetary success that it underlies
almost all kinds of h= uman transactions for billions people on this planet, and

(2) that this introduces the need to take into account other constraint= s than simply
"does this packet get from point A to poin= t B as efficiently as possible",

then I fail to see how we can= disagree that it would be a good thing to introduce
more structured=A0 ways (or, if you prefer, more "efficient", &qu= ot;effective", etc) to ensure
that cross-constituency dialogue in = this=A0 "more complex" world truly scales.

Of c= ourse, we might well disagree on the premises. ;)

I have the impression that when I use the term &q= uot;structure", people - especially
in the IETF community - read &q= uot;laws". That is neither the intended meaning nor
a necessity.
=A0
Best,

Andrea

--
I speak only for myself. = Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
Twitter: @an= dreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D1749288&trk=3Dtab= _pro --bcaec5014cbd7c513d04f338333c-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 02:45:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89521A0693 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:44:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zUbPvevXDvUQ for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:44:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A760E1A0682 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:44:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9893; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393325096; x=1394534696; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=Lmxj0r3lWdpC2/xgvzFZ8kY98JLMF3dmrDoLTPW98fk=; b=OMrhFaal9qg8zRS9g/2VsKB8yisCrKG38x5yH5LhXtuE/MZ1H+YPsvj2 qQJuqZ2CniDp+o8vwZ8PTzHyBZvmDSRvjNhzZHJlKiA0yyqN8jAvhnAb8 WsRJmY04Z61rw7wuD870NzMTJjCZma6G9LWWQ6tKCyPTL3iV07vMlBWmv A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggFAERzDFOQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABZgwY7g1qFXbhugRoWdIIlAQEBAwEjVQEQCyEMCgsCAgkDAgECAUUGDQEHAQGHeQileqBNF45kBwkBgmWBSQSYNJIngW+BPzs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,539,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217";a="5404080" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2014 10:44:54 +0000 Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp3661.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp3661.cisco.com [10.61.78.77]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1PAirFD031176 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:44:54 GMT Message-ID: <530C7425.5020306@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:44:53 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Glorioso References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> <52FD2A19.9040006@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060802050001070009010209" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/hfvMzRxFkVj16SLvlEJFSxHa_rg Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:45:00 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060802050001070009010209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Andrea, On 2/25/14, 10:31 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > This is indeed true, but I would add that many governments / public > authorities > have also played / are also playing a role outside the "technical > level", for > example by designing public procurement systems to promote IPv6, working > on legislation to foster Internet adoption, etc. > > (I'm sure lots of people, myself included, could come up with examples of > public interventions which went in the opposite direction. My aim here is > simply to point out that "technology" does not live in a vacuum. I > think we > actually agree violently on this) Oh I can see we're going to have what I call an "agree'o'thon". Yes, indeed an enabling regulatory environment has been extremely helpful to the Internet's growth. > > > We just held a > workshop on Internet Technology Adoption and Transition (ITAT) in > which > researchers presented a bundling model that takes into account both > positive and negative externalities.[1,2] > > > I was hoping I could read all the papers of this interesting workshop, but > this intention was quickly filed into the "wishful thinking" category. I'm > looking forward to a summary / report, which I understand will be > published > soon-ish. > > > On the other hand, in a > government context there is the possibility of linkage to issues where > the "good" is quite opaque, and quite frankly I have seen this linkage > in action, and it is not pretty. The merits (if any) of the work are > lost. > > > Here I am intrigued. It's one thing to say "this [ legislation | > policy | ... ] > will decrease broadband adoption / break DNSSEC / screw up global > routing efficiency". These things are more or less measurable. > > But I really don't understand what you mean by referring to the > "possibility > of linkage to issues where the 'good' is quite opaque". Suppose governments A, B, and C are trying to agree a standard. Governments C wants an unrelated agreement out of B. B says to C, "vote with me on the standard, and I'll sign." The result had nothing to do with the quality of the standard, and everything to do with the importance of the agreement to C. Government A is wondering what happened because she wasn't party to the other agreement. Lack of transparency and a lack of quality are the result. Simply put, A suffered from a quid pro quo between B and C. This can occur between standards within an organization or even across whole sectors. I have seen both forms in this industry. Depending on the rules of the meeting this sort of behavior is more or less difficult to detect. > > This is why I support the OpenStand principles > (www.open-stand.org ), and why I think > everyone should. > > > I know the principles but I don't immediately see the link between > them and > the possibility of "linkage" you mention above (probably because I'm not > entirely clear about what this "linkage" actually is). The best approach to avoid the above is to focus on the work at hand and judge it on its technical merits alone. The Open Stand principles support open review based on technical merits. Eliot --------------060802050001070009010209 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Andrea,

On 2/25/14, 10:31 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:


This is indeed true, but I would add that many governments / public authorities
have also played / are also playing a role outside the "technical level", for
example by designing public procurement systems to promote IPv6, working
on legislation to foster Internet adoption, etc.

(I'm sure lots of people, myself included, could come up with examples of
public interventions which went in the opposite direction. My aim here is
simply to point out that "technology" does not live in a vacuum. I think we
actually agree violently on this)

Oh I can see we're going to have what I call an "agree'o'thon".  Yes, indeed an enabling regulatory environment has been extremely helpful to the Internet's growth.

 
We just held a
workshop on Internet Technology Adoption and Transition (ITAT) in which
researchers presented a bundling model that takes into account both
positive and negative externalities.[1,2]  

I was hoping I could read all the papers of this interesting workshop, but
this intention was quickly filed into the "wishful thinking" category. I'm
looking forward to a summary / report, which I understand will be published
soon-ish.
 
On the other hand, in a
government context there is the possibility of linkage to issues where
the "good" is quite opaque, and quite frankly I have seen this linkage
in action, and it is not pretty.  The merits (if any) of the work are
lost.  

Here I am intrigued. It's one thing to say "this [ legislation | policy | ... ]
will decrease broadband adoption / break DNSSEC / screw up global
routing efficiency". These things are more or less measurable.

But I really don't understand what you mean by referring to the "possibility
of linkage to issues where the 'good' is quite opaque".

Suppose governments A, B, and C are trying to agree a standard.  Governments C wants an unrelated agreement out of B.  B says to C, "vote with me on the standard, and I'll sign."  The result had nothing to do with the quality of the standard, and everything to do with the importance of the agreement to C.  Government A is wondering what happened because she wasn't party to the other agreement.  Lack of transparency and a lack of quality are the result.  Simply put, A suffered from a quid pro quo between B and C.  This can occur between standards within an organization or even across whole sectors.  I have seen both forms in this industry.  Depending on the rules of the meeting this sort of behavior is more or less difficult to detect.


This is why I support the OpenStand principles
(www.open-stand.org), and why I think everyone should.

I know the principles but I don't immediately see the link between them and
the possibility of "linkage" you mention above (probably because I'm not
entirely clear about what this "linkage" actually is).

The best approach to avoid the above is to focus on the work at hand and judge it on its technical merits alone.  The Open Stand principles support open review based on technical merits.

Eliot
--------------060802050001070009010209-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 03:08:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF511A06A3 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:08:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.423 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id elz5p9Ijstps for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:08:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x230.google.com (mail-ie0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BA91A06A9 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:08:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id rd18so148169iec.35 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:08:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qNvii3c7stPdBftSO86CLFw16+vkAnSb5IVQKco4GQ4=; b=gku2lnqsrsPoHgdpOvc48u6NXSe0UiiNqRi0u0J8L080x1YfWSIW6dXo1PYGn8BBz6 DhfzGggUG/1JPGp/ApW6LvWIoDsL1t+1FME9hFKb5rH5P2SzbyT5tDvj3fBBKH0pNtDT iwHDAHofQmCC5+3majX/K6wJod5Vs0ziZ4iasAxk4uZ4z9K89E4c8KIOM/Q9wNZZLe/7 27w4jpRBLWYL0tBXrbuEUR7/QPJ2DR+FHZ6lUo7/n0NhZKakYhTUpbcHtCPDjSJIOAS0 QwM77Jldw0Md9c+eWZDcOW7uE+ofjh4mNxwBPaifSGx+dDK5Spx6M0AAE2u2csdyogKx UPWg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.214.80 with SMTP id gz16mr18996826icb.6.1393326482338; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:08:02 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:08:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <530C7425.5020306@cisco.com> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> <52FD2A19.9040006@cisco.com> <530C7425.5020306@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:08:02 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Yfenj0zk51BX3mYd0L0wvVU-6qM Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: Eliot Lear Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30426cc209430a04f3391a44 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/jxGnCzfhf5wg11RnuDQsxF44XYY Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:08:05 -0000 --20cf30426cc209430a04f3391a44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Eliot, On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > > On 2/25/14, 10:31 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > This is indeed true, but I would add that many governments / public > authorities > have also played / are also playing a role outside the "technical level", > for > example by designing public procurement systems to promote IPv6, working > on legislation to foster Internet adoption, etc. > > (I'm sure lots of people, myself included, could come up with examples of > public interventions which went in the opposite direction. My aim here is > simply to point out that "technology" does not live in a vacuum. I think we > actually agree violently on this) > > > Oh I can see we're going to have what I call an "agree'o'thon". Yes, > indeed an enabling regulatory environment has been extremely helpful to the > Internet's growth. > Well, I'm not sure the "agree'o'thon" will cover every area of our discussion, but let's enjoy it while it lasts. ;) > Here I am intrigued. It's one thing to say "this [ legislation | > policy | ... ] > will decrease broadband adoption / break DNSSEC / screw up global > routing efficiency". These things are more or less measurable. > > But I really don't understand what you mean by referring to the > "possibility > of linkage to issues where the 'good' is quite opaque". > > > Suppose governments A, B, and C are trying to agree a standard. > Governments C wants an unrelated agreement out of B. B says to C, "vote > with me on the standard, and I'll sign." The result had nothing to do with > the quality of the standard, and everything to do with the importance of > the agreement to C. Government A is wondering what happened because she > wasn't party to the other agreement. Lack of transparency and a lack of > quality are the result. Simply put, A suffered from a quid pro quo between > B and C. This can occur between standards within an organization or even > across whole sectors. I have seen both forms in this industry. Depending > on the rules of the meeting this sort of behavior is more or less difficult > to detect. > That's very helpful, thanks. I now fully understand what you mean. I also note that you shift from "Governments" in your example to other organisations (including industry) in the rest of your paragraph. So I think we can agree (again!) that this dynamic does not depend on the nature particular players involved, but on the rules / procedures employed. > I know the principles but I don't immediately see the link between them > and > the possibility of "linkage" you mention above (probably because I'm not > entirely clear about what this "linkage" actually is). > > > The best approach to avoid the above is to focus on the work at hand and > judge it on its technical merits alone. The Open Stand principles support > open review based on technical merits. > "Judging on technical merits" is fine if all you are interested about is the technical quality of the end-result. There are cases in which "technical quality" is not the only consideration (and even judging what is "technical quality" can sometimes be difficult). This does not mean that "open review" should not be applied to other considerations, too; the point being, however, that depending on what the other considerations are, one has to make sure that the "right" persons / organisations are around the table. In this light, but perhaps worth having a separate thread, let me also point out that "openness" is not the same thing as "inclusiveness". It is certainly a pre-condition; but saying "the door is open; you are free to participate" is not the same as fostering an environment in which participation of the "right" persons / organisations is incentivised. Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --20cf30426cc209430a04f3391a44 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Eliot,

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com= > wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Hi Andrea,


On 2/25/14, 10:31 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:


This is indeed true, but I would add that many governments / public authorities
have also played / are also playing a role outside the "technical level", for
example by designing public procurement systems to promote IPv6, working
on legislation to foster Internet adoption, etc.

(I'm sure lots of people, myself included, could come up with examples of
public interventions which went in the opposite direction. My aim here is
simply to point out that "technology" does not live= in a vacuum. I think we
actually agree violently on this)

Oh I can see we're going to have what I call an "agree'o&#= 39;thon".=A0 Yes, indeed an enabling regulatory environment has been extremely helpful to the Internet's growth.

Well, I'm not sure the "= ;agree'o'thon" will cover every area of our discussion, but le= t's enjoy it while it lasts. ;)
=A0Here I am intrigued. It's one thing to say "th= is [ legislation | policy | ... ]
=20
will decrease broadband adoption / break DNSSEC / sc= rew up global
routing efficiency". These things are more or less measurable.

But I really don't understand what you mean by referring to the "possibility
of linkage to issues where the 'good' is quite opaque= ".

Suppose governments A, B, and C are trying to agree a standard.=A0 Governments C wants an unrelated agreement out of B.=A0 B says to C, "vote with me on the standard, and I'll sign."=A0 The res= ult had nothing to do with the quality of the standard, and everything to do with the importance of the agreement to C.=A0 Government A is wondering what happened because she wasn't party to the other agreement.=A0 Lack of transparency and a lack of quality are the result.=A0 Simply put, A suffered from a quid pro quo between B and C.=A0 This can occur between standards within an organization or even across whole sectors.=A0 I have seen both forms in this industry.=A0 Depending on the rules of the meeting this sort of behavior is more or less difficult to detect.

= That's very helpful, thanks. I now fully understand what you mean. I al= so note that you shift from "Governments" in your example to othe= r organisations (including industry) in the rest of your paragraph. So I th= ink we can agree (again!) that this dynamic does not depend on the nature p= articular players involved, but on the rules / procedures employed.
I know the principles but I don't = immediately see the link between them and
=20
the possibility of "linkage" you mention above (probably because I'm not
entirely clear about what this "linkage" actually i= s).

The best approach to avoid the above is to focus on the work at hand and judge it on its technical merits alone.=A0 The Open Stand principles support open review based on technical merits.
=
"Judging on technical merits" is fine if all you a= re interested about is the technical quality of the end-result. There are c= ases in which "technical quality" is not the only consideration (= and even judging what is "technical quality" can sometimes be dif= ficult). This does not mean that "open review" should not be appl= ied to other considerations, too; the point being, however, that depending = on what the other considerations are, one has to make sure that the "r= ight" persons / organisations are around the table.

In this light, but perhaps worth having a separate thread, l= et me also point out that "openness" is not the same thing as &qu= ot;inclusiveness". It is certainly a pre-condition; but saying "t= he door is open; you are free to participate" is not the same as foste= ring an environment in which participation of the "right" persons= / organisations is incentivised.
=A0
Best,

Andrea

--
I= speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it = in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andr= ea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--20cf30426cc209430a04f3391a44-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 06:18:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBD51A0741 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:18:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.363 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ZiPZv8CZ29b for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:18:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43AE31A073E for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:18:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.156.84]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1PEIBhZ021873 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:18:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1393337904; bh=eKFljrLgKADuvzEL6IgNSXMymtwuuwcZpswWmwbt+4k=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=pF+wdAGuy95mO8ZT/1n+hgLhHF8EFPg9s682R9/vfuHf0EerlxeOaA5vm9yTg8tOT e64lGXJdb86kO2J3h/K110i671atHua62h0PBxaTy6ODxFiFo36eHt6tAAlldBf5uq rHPkxbrK2VS5cyvf2LJqtxn/W6PGjjgA8LwOira8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1393337904; i=@elandsys.com; bh=eKFljrLgKADuvzEL6IgNSXMymtwuuwcZpswWmwbt+4k=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=dKzmvojTPvS9Cjxze4i8ihp5CIgxbIJvX8CnQSMTyfGgjGpU9WaBE8c4TogV6Wzsx JhmOQf7bsd6UuGXqsUcfqBnJVMyBHPdUQeWnTkZ3DyqfX30F8q4E6xf8FL0MtZTohZ 12Xvuy4Fb5RZeljl6kVdtR1+glcUPxttYJ7ZtD0s= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140225051302.0be980a0@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:14:18 -0800 To: Andrea Glorioso From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140213103950.0d888180@resistor.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/l2s9tufH3vZ5tZjEWbzptgQDTL4 Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Eliot Lear Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] A "healthy" or a "secure" internet (was: US Government response to the European Commission statement) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:18:37 -0000 Hi Andrea, At 01:21 25-02-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >sorry for the belated replies. Increased workload + health issues in >the family. I hope that things are better now. >The first step in any conversation which aims to be productive for >all parties is to make sure there is a common understanding of the >terms of the discussion (but see my PS below) > >At a certain point, however, it becomes rather cumbersome to check >each and every time what each term means. That's not how social systems work. > >Coming to the IETF, I think I have a rather good idea of what this >community considers to be a "secure" Internet. I'm less sure there >is a shared understanding of what "healthy" means. I don't think I have a good answer to the above but I'll give it a try. A healthy Internet is one where devices on any two autonomous networks can communicate with each other while using hardware and software which adhere to widely-accepted standards. >PS: actually, there can be cases in which it is actually productive >and perfectly logical (although not very sustainable) for each party >to make sure that each word has a different meaning, in order to be >able to later claim that there was an agreement, but also that what >was concluded has the specific meaning each party wants it to have. >I understand this sounds like anathema to a specification-setting >body, but it does happen in many walks of life, from romantic >relationships to global political negotiations. Anyway, I don't want >to digress. ;) There are times when we might use different words and yet we mean the same thing. :-) Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Tue Feb 25 06:20:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA7F1A040F for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:20:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZyuWM8gZV5h for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:20:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B9431A06EA for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:20:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12035; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393338016; x=1394547616; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=AYu9AnRupk0RqIwDj8hCq8Yroh9fbTSzlTCZxEmksFw=; b=NhhA1JxPVelylaMxRxyg1UYDwmp5dsf9lyugGiLy/8GNugdzzi93PtIu NMidQaSnSFAaHtLVCbSRnYHimiMTCnJGQSHJGZ92qDJojEvPijHkhu477 Hfa1gaXZJGGf+ENMnkCEjFawOT45lEjVaO/XDbY+XZHnEOXvaEpOm18M6 o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFACGmDFOQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABZgwaEFYVduHGBFxZ0giUBAQEDASNVAQULCxgJDAoLAgIJAwIBAgErGgYNAQcBAYd5CKYloEcXjh9FBwqCZYFJBJg0kieBb4E/Ow X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,540,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217";a="6088434" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2014 14:20:15 +0000 Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.161.90]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1PEKDuA029484 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:20:14 GMT Message-ID: <530CA69D.4080708@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:20:13 +0100 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Glorioso References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> <52FD2A19.9040006@cisco.com> <530C7425.5020306@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020708040500060505090405" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/Xh2Jqdggf_VWGruQn8YsMGKRbtg Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:20:19 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020708040500060505090405 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Andrea, Again, these are just my views. On 2/25/14, 12:08 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > That's very helpful, thanks. I now fully understand what you mean. I > also note that you shift from "Governments" in your example to other > organisations (including industry) in the rest of your paragraph. So I > think we can agree (again!) that this dynamic does not depend on the > nature particular players involved, but on the rules / procedures > employed. Sure. However, the scope by which this occurs with governments is vastly broader. What's more, I focus on the governmental case because I observed it happening, at what I believe was at the expense of technical quality (see below). As an engineer, that offends my sensibilities. As an IAB member, I grow concerned when it happens in such a way that can harm overall interoperability or security, or otherwise lead to overall slower growth of the technology. We have seen proposals in intergovernmental fora in which all of these issues have come to play (I am not, by the way, singling out any one institution- there are many). Furthermore, governments have a tendency toward these sorts of linkages, especially as relates to national strategies. I think that's why the Uruguay Round made clear a preference against national standards and for global standards. Well, if governments can play their national hands in an international arena, they've just gotten around the TBTs. That's bad not just for trade (about which I know comparatively little) but for interoperability (about which I know something). Of course, governments do have an important role in our ecosystem (as we have discussed). >> I know the principles but I don't immediately see the link >> between them and >> the possibility of "linkage" you mention above (probably because >> I'm not >> entirely clear about what this "linkage" actually is). > > The best approach to avoid the above is to focus on the work at > hand and judge it on its technical merits alone. The Open Stand > principles support open review based on technical merits. > > > "Judging on technical merits" is fine if all you are interested about > is the technical quality of the end-result. There are cases in which > "technical quality" is not the only consideration (and even judging > what is "technical quality" can sometimes be difficult). These are both important statements, Andrea. If the end result of a quid pro quo is avoidance of a war, as a citizen of the world, I should happily eat a little interoperability problem. But suppose it's a minor trade agreement, or a maybe favor in exchange for tickets to the opera. Part of the Internet's success, if you will, is that IETF standards have by and large avoided this sort of thing, thanks to thorough review at multiple levels. I don't recall that we have a clear and objective definition for technical quality, but it generally falls in line with engineering discipline- meet a set of real world practical requirements that have been provided to them in the least costly manner, taking into account the scaling factors and security requirements of the Internet. Those requirements come from diverse groups of individuals, including governments. If we have no requirements and we try to design, we end up with what I would call, for lack of a better word, art. It might be nice in and of itself. It might even be usable. It might even be revolutionary. But it is not engineering. Steve Jobs was part artist. But enough of my going on. What do you think the other considerations are? > This does not mean that "open review" should not be applied to other > considerations, too; the point being, however, that depending on what > the other considerations are, one has to make sure that the "right" > persons / organisations are around the table. > > In this light, but perhaps worth having a separate thread, let me also > point out that "openness" is not the same thing as "inclusiveness". It > is certainly a pre-condition; but saying "the door is open; you are > free to participate" is not the same as fostering an environment in > which participation of the "right" persons / organisations is > incentivised. > I would be curious of your views on the very important topic you raise. Eliot --------------020708040500060505090405 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Andrea,

Again, these are just my views.

On 2/25/14, 12:08 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:

That's very helpful, thanks. I now fully understand what you mean. I also note that you shift from "Governments" in your example to other organisations (including industry) in the rest of your paragraph. So I think we can agree (again!) that this dynamic does not depend on the nature particular players involved, but on the rules / procedures employed.

Sure.  However, the scope by which this occurs with governments is vastly broader.  What's more, I focus on the governmental case because I observed it happening, at what I believe was at the expense of technical quality (see below).  As an engineer, that offends my sensibilities. As an IAB member, I grow concerned when it happens in such a way that can harm overall interoperability or security, or otherwise lead to overall slower growth of the technology.  We have seen proposals in intergovernmental fora in which all of these issues have come to play (I am not, by the way, singling out any one institution- there are many).

Furthermore, governments have a tendency toward these sorts of linkages, especially as relates to national strategies.  I think that's why the Uruguay Round made clear a preference against national standards and for global standards.  Well, if governments can play their national hands in an international arena, they've just gotten around the TBTs.  That's bad not just for trade (about which I know comparatively little) but for interoperability (about which I know something).

Of course, governments do have an important role in our ecosystem (as we have discussed).

I know the principles but I don't immediately see the link between them and
the possibility of "linkage" you mention above (probably because I'm not
entirely clear about what this "linkage" actually is).

The best approach to avoid the above is to focus on the work at hand and judge it on its technical merits alone.  The Open Stand principles support open review based on technical merits.

"Judging on technical merits" is fine if all you are interested about is the technical quality of the end-result. There are cases in which "technical quality" is not the only consideration (and even judging what is "technical quality" can sometimes be difficult).

These are both important statements, Andrea.  If the end result of a quid pro quo is avoidance of a war, as a citizen of the world, I should happily eat a little interoperability problem.  But suppose it's a minor trade agreement, or a maybe favor in exchange for tickets to the opera.  Part of the Internet's success, if you will, is that IETF standards have by and large avoided this sort of thing, thanks to thorough review at multiple levels.

I don't recall that we have a clear and objective definition for technical quality, but it generally falls in line with engineering discipline- meet a set of real world practical requirements that have been provided to them in the least costly manner, taking into account the scaling factors and security requirements of the Internet.    Those requirements come from diverse groups of individuals, including governments.  If we have no requirements and we try to design, we end up with what I would call, for lack of a better word, art.  It might be nice in and of itself.  It might even be usable.  It might even be revolutionary.  But it is not engineering.  Steve Jobs was part artist.

But enough of my going on. What do you think the other considerations are?

This does not mean that "open review" should not be applied to other considerations, too; the point being, however, that depending on what the other considerations are, one has to make sure that the "right" persons / organisations are around the table.

In this light, but perhaps worth having a separate thread, let me also point out that "openness" is not the same thing as "inclusiveness". It is certainly a pre-condition; but saying "the door is open; you are free to participate" is not the same as fostering an environment in which participation of the "right" persons / organisations is incentivised.
 
I would be curious of your views on the very important topic you raise.

Eliot
--------------020708040500060505090405-- From dave@difference.com.au Tue Feb 25 08:01:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B5B1A07A4 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:01:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.95 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S0-qtxKGyLwC for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:01:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from legba.difference.com.au (legba.difference.com.au [203.56.168.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8793D1A07BC for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:01:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (58-7-108-128.dyn.iinet.net.au [58.7.108.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by legba.difference.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04A00A7367; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:03:15 +0800 (WST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E527CBDF-D032-40D9-BDFA-6FB39EE248C2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.1 (c48bcb1) From: David Cake In-Reply-To: <20140224141622.074DDA77DA@legba.difference.com.au> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:01:42 +0800 Message-Id: <932D62B8-A17B-42B7-96C8-85BB9131955B@difference.com.au> References: <1a21660d4954433b822ec6573eaa360c@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <0EB1BE57-4C56-4DC9-ADDD-DB25886382C6@difference.com.au> <99AABCA5-3340-4E3A-AA98-6E0E492DDD71@chambers.gen.nz> <9D4FFC07-EEF1-41FC-AA27-9E6AD9CFA65A@istaff.org> <5B2D0D11-544F-456A-A7BE-11B75AA1C31D@shinkuro.com> <20140224141622.074DDA77DA@legba.difference.com.au> To: Jefsey X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/r_XvdmfNlvknuMPVxmm6-gH6LoM X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:12:46 -0800 Cc: Steve Crocker , John Curran , "discuss@1net.org" , internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com, uicg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] [discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:06:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E527CBDF-D032-40D9-BDFA-6FB39EE248C2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 24 Feb 2014, at 8:50 pm, Jefsey wrote: > At 12:59 24/02/2014, Steve Crocker wrote: >> John, et al, >> There is work underway to bring the GAC earlier into the policy = development process so their input is available during and not just = after the PDP concludes. >=20 > What is surprising is that the BoD, during its september meeting, when = it planned its /1net strategy, did not planned a way to involve the GAC = in the Sao Paulo preparation. It isn't surprising to me - the Brazilian government, rather = than the ICANN, is handling govt involvement in Sao Paulo preparation, = and are handling govt participation.=20 It IS, however, unfortunate.=20 Once again, I say that govt policy positions are not unified, = though many of our international governance models presume they are. And = the Brazilian govt is not necessarily inviting the same govt = representatives to Sao Paulo as would be invited to the GAC. I know this = to be true for Australia (normally our GAC reps are from from the Dept = of Communications, but the Foreign Affairs and Trade dept is supplying = our reps for the Sao Paulo meeting). Their positions may well differ - = and their experience with multi-stakeholder processes certainly will.=20 Regards David --Apple-Mail=_E527CBDF-D032-40D9-BDFA-6FB39EE248C2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTDL5mAAoJEPVzXDE37qYXgvEH/RfiEdgwh3cVBVXgAC5Mf7dM LGIIwgc0wMZlK23AcrtgNdWXYcSmlLSEiXB7aeUY5P6M7obfe3Rh7oZ0JPxbmeNS +SfNxUVasDpzckxGzZmiPTGUzejqjT+G4nlSHuoKsCq6xOTAOYb9NIAaI0ChpD68 1dyyt8zGgBKlqYklnxso3EMiy+Y2Wpi4XmerjYJsK4MtNyWArE+qK/GQp9wQdxKK XtMiiHVOPC54WmIQDQ6eb8j4gZVM5VIfF4+0emKBNAgOpbB1yohlRwbN2elJbXRQ KMsxfAgVOxDUVXtJcn5jqcWXbVESThOu3isyajvETlYGM8soZhuFfGLywvHLoiQ= =f4uq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E527CBDF-D032-40D9-BDFA-6FB39EE248C2-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 08:45:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BFD1A0754 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:45:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kg-WNYYvwXls for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:45:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.riw.us (server.riw.us [162.144.32.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3198C1A0735 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:45:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-098-122-144-218.nc.res.rr.com ([98.122.144.218]:62087 helo=RussPC) by server.riw.us with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:AES128-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WIL8F-0003VS-LC; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:45:23 +0000 From: "Russ White" To: "'Andrea Glorioso'" , "'Brian E Carpenter'" References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FD9183.8090101@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:45:23 -0500 Message-ID: <01a701cf3248$fac2ac90$f04805b0$@riw.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJMFih2b/pqIL5HvUFCBvP9zfnmIAHwS+XUAcF8GWsC7qp9sgH+vKWhAszX6ToCRYMQCgJb3hQGAdISwhECnP4jHwI/k6oSmRaD9zA= Content-Language: en-us X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.riw.us X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - riw.us X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.riw.us: authenticated_id: russw@riw.us X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/mZOjp_oALKABWjuivTHNZfbOPHI Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:45:36 -0000 > Well, public authorities are often very important users of technology. > So > their participation in the definition of the specifications / standards of such > technology might actually be useful for later adoption. As _users_. The problem is that it's often taken as a given that if a public authority determines it should use technology x in a specific way, then the market must (as a matter of course) adopt it. One of the rather healthy things to happen in the US, for instance, was the non-adoption of ADA even though it was mandated through various laws, etc. That showed that the US government didn't, at that point, have a "controlling interest" in where the market went, and hence the market could develop better solutions to problems as they arose. > I also believe that standard setting which does not take into account the > broader socio-legal environment in which the relevant technologies will be > used is not particularly sustainable. I posit that public authorities are an Can you explain the use of the term "sustainable" here? Just curious what you actually mean when you say the social legal environment won't be "sustainable..." Are you saying that governments can't maintain control over their populations if technology is not properly controlled, or... ?? I don't know if I understand the meaning in this context. :-) Russ From nobody Tue Feb 25 09:05:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFE41A0810 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:05:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4StAeOHZBNAe for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:05:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.riw.us (server.riw.us [162.144.32.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60AB31A072F for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:05:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-098-122-144-218.nc.res.rr.com ([98.122.144.218]:62470 helo=RussPC) by server.riw.us with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:AES128-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WILRu-0003qU-1x; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:05:42 +0000 From: "Russ White" To: "'Andrea Glorioso'" , "'Arturo Servin'" References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:05:41 -0500 Message-ID: <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJMFih2b/pqIL5HvUFCBvP9zfnmIAHwS+XUAcF8GWsC7qp9sgH+vKWhAszX6ToCRYMQCgN5j4kmAhEOGroCAPUEa5kifMag Content-Language: en-us X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.riw.us X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - riw.us X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.riw.us: authenticated_id: russw@riw.us X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/q6maxPOCSTLDEqmIQ6RJXKcs2ug Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:05:55 -0000 (Speaking only for myself, and not for any organization of which I might happen to be a member, work for, etc., etc.) > Why not? Too much structure certainly can stifle discussion. But too little > structure can easily lead to energy waste, duplication, lack of information, > etc. Structure doesn't necessarily solve these problems, in my experience. Structure can be used to reduce wasted energy, but it can also be used to force nonoptimal solutions by saying, "we've already discussed this; the debate is over," even when no real debate has taken place. It can also be used to freeze suboptimal solutions in place far beyond their marginal usefulness. What we often tend to forget is that the structure itself accrues value (look at the value placed on holding a leadership position in the IETF, for instance -- something that wouldn't have been really thinkable just ten years ago), and hence attempts to be self-perpetuating whether or not it is still useful. > Structure is just one of the ways in which human beings handle complexity. Yes. But sometimes structure adds complexity that isn't necessary, as well. > (1) the world of Internet technologies is becoming more complex, > because the Internet has become such a planetary success that it underlies > almost all kinds of human transactions for billions people on this planet, and > > (2) that this introduces the need to take into account other constraints than > simply > "does this packet get from point A to point B as efficiently as possible", > then I fail to see how we can disagree that it would be a good thing to > introduce more structured ways (or, if you prefer, more "efficient", > "effective", etc) to ensure that cross-constituency dialogue in this "more > complex" world truly scales. The problem here is this line of thinking assumes "more structure == more efficient." It simply isn't true in all cases. The right structure is more efficient than the wrong structure and no structure. The wrong structure is often worse than no structure at all. The key point is not, "should we put structure around this or not," the key point is, "how much, and where do we need to apply structure." The underlying themes should be to err on the side of less structure rather than more, and allow structure to grow rather than being imposed. We'll more often misread and put the wrong structure in place rather than making the right choice the first time, or in the "early days." This argument can even be made in the case of government sponsored research, which can warp a market in the name of creating one. We're often reminded of the wonderful things government sponsored research has provided (TANG, anyone?); we're not often reminded of the many and varied mistakes governments have made in choosing one technology over another, etc. (TANG, anyone?). I know this will make some folks mad (and I apologize in advance for anyone who's offended) -- but, IMHO, BGPSEC is a case in point (not the RPKI, but BGPSEC proper). Government money has warped the discussion to the point that useful discussion can no longer take place. The technology was chosen before the requirements were actually investigated, and no proper evaluation of actual tradeoffs was taken into consideration. Rather, one problem was pinpointed that one government sponsored solution could "solve," and all effort, since then, has gone into "solving" that one problem, regardless of what else must be considered "out of bounds," etc., to get there. IMHO, this end result isn't a good piece of technology, and it doesn't solve the problems that need to be solved. Hence there is both potential danger, as well as potential "progress," down this path. We should be aware of both, and try not to override the natural progression of things on a technology front. Just my 2c. :-) Russ From nobody Tue Feb 25 09:28:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72351A0114 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:28:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.797 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_MX=0.535, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HK_NAME_DR=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l4hulcPQwwBa for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:28:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.unam.mx (mail.unam.mx [132.248.10.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75571A00A9 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:28:33 -0800 (PST) From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" To: Russ White , 'Andrea Glorioso' , 'Arturo Servin' Thread-Topic: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement Thread-Index: AQHPKLWrS7m0J9szWkyFwhDqoqn0OJqziv6AgAA655iAEm70AIAAdfCA//+kAMI= Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:38:45 +0000 Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8B0ED@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> , <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> In-Reply-To: <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> Accept-Language: es-MX, en-US Content-Language: es-MX X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [189.146.160.223] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/Dr9U4TFSeMH6boElq3LU0tqhQCI Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:28:38 -0000 Russ,=0A= =0A= mostly +1.=0A= =0A= It's the physiology that counts, not the anatomy.=0A= =0A= If there were a clear and flagrant need for meta-technical considerations i= n technical standards-setting, which is posited here as a European point of= view, wouldn't the EU already have bridled ETSI with it? (and no, I'm not = promoting this idea - it is a reductio ad absurdum argument.) Is the OOXML = story of Europe-as-fast-track a harbinger?=0A= =0A= Yours,=0A= =0A= Alejandro Pisanty=0A= =0A= =0A= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -=0A= Dr. Alejandro Pisanty=0A= Facultad de Qu=EDmica UNAM=0A= Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD=0A= =0A= +525541444475 DESDE M=C9XICO SMS +525541444475=0A= Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com=0A= LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty=0A= Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C= 0C8614=0A= Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty=0A= ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org=0A= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .=0A= =0A= ________________________________________=0A= Desde: Internetgovtech [internetgovtech-bounces@iab.org] en nombre de Russ = White [russw@riw.us]=0A= Enviado el: martes, 25 de febrero de 2014 11:05=0A= Hasta: 'Andrea Glorioso'; 'Arturo Servin'=0A= CC: internetgovtech@iab.org=0A= Asunto: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commis= sion statement=0A= =0A= (Speaking only for myself, and not for any organization of which I might=0A= happen to be a member, work for, etc., etc.)=0A= =0A= > Why not? Too much structure certainly can stifle discussion. But too=0A= little=0A= > structure can easily lead to energy waste, duplication, lack of=0A= information,=0A= > etc.=0A= =0A= Structure doesn't necessarily solve these problems, in my experience.=0A= Structure can be used to reduce wasted energy, but it can also be used to= =0A= force nonoptimal solutions by saying, "we've already discussed this; the=0A= debate is over," even when no real debate has taken place. It can also be= =0A= used to freeze suboptimal solutions in place far beyond their marginal=0A= usefulness. What we often tend to forget is that the structure itself=0A= accrues value (look at the value placed on holding a leadership position in= =0A= the IETF, for instance -- something that wouldn't have been really thinkabl= e=0A= just ten years ago), and hence attempts to be self-perpetuating whether or= =0A= not it is still useful.=0A= =0A= > Structure is just one of the ways in which human beings handle complexity= .=0A= =0A= Yes. But sometimes structure adds complexity that isn't necessary, as well.= =0A= =0A= > (1) the world of Internet technologies is becoming more complex,=0A= > because the Internet has become such a planetary success that it underlie= s=0A= > almost all kinds of human transactions for billions people on this planet= ,=0A= and=0A= >=0A= > (2) that this introduces the need to take into account other constraints= =0A= than=0A= > simply=0A= > "does this packet get from point A to point B as efficiently as possible"= ,=0A= =0A= > then I fail to see how we can disagree that it would be a good thing to= =0A= > introduce more structured ways (or, if you prefer, more "efficient",=0A= > "effective", etc) to ensure that cross-constituency dialogue in this=0A= "more=0A= > complex" world truly scales.=0A= =0A= The problem here is this line of thinking assumes "more structure =3D=3D mo= re=0A= efficient." It simply isn't true in all cases. The right structure is more= =0A= efficient than the wrong structure and no structure. The wrong structure is= =0A= often worse than no structure at all. The key point is not, "should we put= =0A= structure around this or not," the key point is, "how much, and where do we= =0A= need to apply structure." The underlying themes should be to err on the sid= e=0A= of less structure rather than more, and allow structure to grow rather than= =0A= being imposed. We'll more often misread and put the wrong structure in plac= e=0A= rather than making the right choice the first time, or in the "early days."= =0A= =0A= This argument can even be made in the case of government sponsored research= ,=0A= which can warp a market in the name of creating one. We're often reminded o= f=0A= the wonderful things government sponsored research has provided (TANG,=0A= anyone?); we're not often reminded of the many and varied mistakes=0A= governments have made in choosing one technology over another, etc. (TANG,= =0A= anyone?). I know this will make some folks mad (and I apologize in advance= =0A= for anyone who's offended) -- but, IMHO, BGPSEC is a case in point (not the= =0A= RPKI, but BGPSEC proper). Government money has warped the discussion to the= =0A= point that useful discussion can no longer take place. The technology was= =0A= chosen before the requirements were actually investigated, and no proper=0A= evaluation of actual tradeoffs was taken into consideration. Rather, one=0A= problem was pinpointed that one government sponsored solution could "solve,= "=0A= and all effort, since then, has gone into "solving" that one problem,=0A= regardless of what else must be considered "out of bounds," etc., to get=0A= there. IMHO, this end result isn't a good piece of technology, and it=0A= doesn't solve the problems that need to be solved.=0A= =0A= Hence there is both potential danger, as well as potential "progress," down= =0A= this path. We should be aware of both, and try not to override the natural= =0A= progression of things on a technology front.=0A= =0A= Just my 2c.=0A= =0A= :-)=0A= =0A= Russ=0A= =0A= =0A= _______________________________________________=0A= Internetgovtech mailing list=0A= Internetgovtech@iab.org=0A= https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech=0A= From nobody Tue Feb 25 10:01:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2811A01C8 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:00:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.423 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IhiqLXQHtEiD for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:00:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBB91A0158 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:00:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ar20so656291iec.39 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:00:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=HFTIjebMkU6f6/6FvUfVjmWKXe2LpWZbCvWhr0xvXI4=; b=VpjfGwL216N8Pch1Qrr0ufRiVJsupVDOG3XxzyA3ZVLOSSRDL6u767gQIJkbBQX6t1 IHniJ1XH3jIKrj3cYPER44m+bQf8RiWuKrzL+nVfwB2XPtKOfSccdOM24c47D7nvcJmL CLdvEGAKu5wFPgm41BpLOoVfkAADgK7Bz0hxyAYVmkUHJIoFanimb/UPLZSVrFQDGP/B CowwT27Nxn462og6uTpD8dlbEALjkoRyLgnq7rTVA0AuELlgTJxo/rgKwRiTlmZfcViq SGimegK+hlM8ni475cmhUBHrpWg7pjmMKjdx2ALchAze/eUwpn9pZPTmDZOwpKtjUZ3W KlbQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.79.234 with SMTP id m10mr4779236igx.47.1393351240490; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:00:40 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:00:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <01a701cf3248$fac2ac90$f04805b0$@riw.us> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FD9183.8090101@gmail.com> <01a701cf3248$fac2ac90$f04805b0$@riw.us> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:00:40 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: M9LV1UuoBozE563D6vMoU66lHAs Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: Russ White Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122a59cbe301d04f33edde8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/Q48WwWbVlogAa50tAeMr44nvtjs Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:00:58 -0000 --089e0122a59cbe301d04f33edde8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Russ, dear all, On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Russ White wrote: > > > Well, public authorities are often very important users of technology. > > So > > their participation in the definition of the specifications / standards > of > such > > technology might actually be useful for later adoption. > > As _users_. The problem is that it's often taken as a given that if a > public > authority determines it should use technology x in a specific way, then the > market must (as a matter of course) adopt it. One of the rather healthy > things to happen in the US, for instance, was the non-adoption of ADA even > though it was mandated through various laws, etc. That showed that the US > government didn't, at that point, have a "controlling interest" in where > the > market went, and hence the market could develop better solutions to > problems > as they arose. > That may be possible, but to be clear it has nothing to do with what the Commission wrote in the statement (the Communication of 12.2.2014) which originated this thread. > > I also believe that standard setting which does not take into account the > > broader socio-legal environment in which the relevant technologies will > be > > used is not particularly sustainable. I posit that public authorities are > an > > Can you explain the use of the term "sustainable" here? Just curious what > you actually mean when you say the social legal environment won't be > "sustainable..." Are you saying that governments can't maintain control > over > their populations if technology is not properly controlled, or... ?? I > don't > know if I understand the meaning in this context. > > :-) Sure. But let me first of all observe that making the logical leap from the notion of "sustainability" to that of "control", and on top of that reading in my two paragraphs (which I quote for completeness below - note the final sentence of the second paragraph please) any wish for governmental control over their populations, is in my opinion quite surprising. It almost looks like you have some rather strong and well-formed prejudices towards public authorities. But I do accept the notion that I might have completely misunderstood your logic. Having said that, this is what I wrote: "I also believe that standard setting which does not take into account the broader socio-legal environment in which the relevant technologies will be used is not particularly sustainable. I posit that public authorities are an important - but not the only, and perhaps in some cases not even the primary - source for these broader considerations. Which does not mean, by the way, that public authorities should be in the driving seat (I'm saying this only because I know the usual reaction to the notion I mentioned above is "oh! You want to take-over!" which is not what I, or for that matter the Commission as an official position, want to do)." And here is some further explanation on what I mean. In order to make sure that a technology, or set of technologies, is broadly accepted by the general public / citizens, technical efficiency / effectiveness (against some agreed benchmark) can hardly be the only criterion. If that were to be the case, we would not be having right now (in Europe and elsewhere) the whole debate about GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). Market adoption is a valid proxy for success in many cases, but we know very well that markets are far from perfect entities (probably that's my crypto-socialist European soul speaking here). And especially when it comes to GPTs (General Purpose Technologies) such as the Internet (which would probably be best described as a set of different technologies) with its many impacts on social, cultural, political phenomena, I'm not at all sure that I would want "market success" to be the only criterion to judge the overall impact of an Internet protocol / specification / technology. So, to the notion of sustainability: if you ask a citizen on the street, I doubt that he will judge "the Internet techies" only, or even mostly, on the basis of whether protocol X is great at mitigating network congestion. The citizen on the street is worried (depending on whom you ask) whether the Internet can ensure his / her security, privacy, whether his / her children are protected while they are online, whether "the Internet" will help him / her find a better job or lose the one s/he has, etc. Does this mean that the "citizen on the street" should run the IETF? I certainly hope not. :) But I do think that if the kind of concerns I highlight above are not taken into consideration, sooner or later the relevance of the IETF in producing technological specifications will be challenged. Not because it lacks technical skills - to the contrary - but because technical skills are not the only concern out there, now that the Internet has moved from being a playground for scientists to a vital technology for billions of persons. That's the "sustainablity" I am talking about. And of course many of the concerns I very simplistically mention above are not the job of the IETF to solve. If, however, one accepts the notion that technological choices do have broader impacts on society, I - and, most importantly, the Commission - believe that it would be good to at least start a reflection on how such interactions play out; and, to the extent possible and deemed useful, to make sure that the dialogue, between those who "produce" technology and those who "consume" it, does exist and is well structured. As I said in another email (possibly in another mailing list) the Commission is clearly NOT calling for a purely bidirectional conversation between technologists and public authorities, but for a broader "multi-stakeholder" engagement. I hope this helps a bit. Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --089e0122a59cbe301d04f33edde8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Russ, dear all,

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Russ White <russw@riw.= us> wrote:

> Well, public authorities are often very important users of technology.=
> So
> their participation in the definition of the specifications / standard= s of
such
> technology might actually be useful for later adoption.

As _users_. The problem is that it's often taken as a given that = if a public
authority determines it should use technology x in a specific way, then the=
market must (as a matter of course) adopt it. One of the rather healthy
things to happen in the US, for instance, was the non-adoption of ADA even<= br> though it was mandated through various laws, etc. That showed that the US government didn't, at that point, have a "controlling interest&quo= t; in where the
market went, and hence the market could develop better solutions to problem= s
as they arose.

That may be possible, bu= t to be clear it has nothing to do with what the
Commission wrote in the= statement (the Communication of 12.2.2014) which
originated = this thread.
=A0
<= div class=3D""> > I also believe that standard setting which does not take into account = the
> broader socio-legal environment in which the relevant technologies wil= l be
> used is not particularly sustainable. I posit that public authorities = are
an

Can you explain the use of the term "sustainable" here? Jus= t curious what
you actually mean when you say the social legal environment won't be "sustainable..." Are you saying that governments can't mainta= in control over
their populations if technology is not properly controlled, or... ?? I don&= #39;t
know if I understand the meaning in this context.

:-)

Sure. But let me first of all observe t= hat making the logical leap from the
notion of "sustaina= bility" to that of "control", and on top of that reading
in my two paragraphs (which I quote for completeness below - note the
fi= nal sentence of the second paragraph please) any wish for governmental
= control over their populations, is in my opinion quite surprising. It almos= t
looks like you have some rather strong and well-formed prejudices towards p= ublic
authorities.

But I do accept the notion that I might have= completely misunderstood your
logic.

Having said that, this is what I wrote:

"I= also believe that standard setting which does not take into account thebroader socio-legal environment in which the relevant technologies will be used is not particularly sustainable. I posit that public authorities ar= e
an important - but not the only, and perhaps in some cases not even the
= primary - source for these broader considerations.

Which = does not mean, by the way, that public authorities should be in
the driv= ing seat (I'm saying this only because I know the usual reaction
to the notion I mentioned above is "oh! You want to take-ov= er!" which is
not what I, or for that matter the Commission as an = official position,
want to do)."

And here i= s some further explanation on what I mean.

In order to make sure that a technology, or set of technolog= ies, is broadly
accepted by the general public / citizens, technical eff= iciency / effectiveness
(against some agreed benchmark) can h= ardly be the only criterion. If
that were to be the case, we would not be having right now (in Europe andelsewhere) the whole debate about GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms).<= br>
Market adoption is a valid proxy for success in many case= s, but we know
very well that markets are far from perfect entities (probably that's m= y
crypto-socialist European soul speaking here). And especially when it<= br>comes to GPTs (General Purpose Technologies) such as the Internet (which=
would probably be best described as a set of different technolog= ies) with its
many impacts on social, cultural, political p= henomena, I'm not at all sure
that I would want "market success= " to be the only criterion to judge the overall
impact of an Internet protocol / specification / technology.

<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">So, to the notion of sustainability: if you ask a= citizen on the street, I doubt
that he will judge "the Internet te= chies" only, or even mostly, on the basis of
whether protocol X is great at mitigating network congestion. The citizen o= n the
street is worried (depending on whom you ask) whether the Internet= can
ensure his / her security, privacy, whether his / her children are = protected
while they are online, whether "the Internet" will help him / her= find a better
job or lose the one s/he has, etc.

Does this mean that the "citizen on the street"= ; should run the IETF? I
certainly hope not. :)

But I do think that if the kind of concerns I= highlight above are not taken
into consideration, sooner or later the r= elevance of the IETF in producing
techn= ological specifications will be challenged. Not because it lacks
technical skills - to the contrary - but because technical skills are notthe only concern out there, now that the Internet has moved from beinga playground for scientists to a vital technology for billions of persons.=

That's the "sustainablity&quo= t; I am talking about.

And of course many of the concerns I very simplistical= ly mention above
are not the job of the IETF to solve.

If, however, one accepts the = notion that technological choices do have
broader impacts on society, I= - and, most importantly, the Commission -
believe that it would be goo= d to at least start a reflection on how such
interactions play out; and, to the extent possible and deemed useful,
t= o make sure that the dialogue, between those who "produce" techno= logy
and those who "consume" it, does exist and is well struc= tured.

As I said in another email (possibly in another mailing
list) the Co= mmission is clearly NOT calling for a purely bidirectional
conversation between technologists and public authorit= ies, but for a broader
"multi-stakeholder" engagement.<= br>
I hope this helps a bit.

And= rea

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it= in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/and= rea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--089e0122a59cbe301d04f33edde8-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 10:11:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7EC1A0126 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:11:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.423 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wWV1NA1J2hs2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:11:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08991A0118 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:11:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id to1so673876ieb.2 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:11:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mlSzEknrNauTH+Dfh2JvS7FItfYOXI0AcMVZxgYUybI=; b=CQ5WW9VhRILj+hhFIhZuNg9Xg8vbQFq63VowBm3Be0gdSHBsjTn6ZkTx3vInfqNjd3 25C8y/zOYhGBbgHRh4NZKojXqJFR3oNdoZX6aa25mhACzZbhgs92hR+sZKtE4vHG4vjk v4zE4uwogyXlJ0HEwP6oB4FWuRkMO1vDEtxCJvTSYwLrLKvPe88zUyufzqndvURcfMyM syo9+sLwE3RVNUl1rEPgxV4P3WoDzt2c6L3zyQUFIk6WVT6b+LAPI/oOfzLBu19Wtc7O Uoa0ShbEHS3S2hP8pfb75lG6rc+Ar8e5AKkR6wLBexUtTMtk+rGMtFw6Gytb/DE3iJJa urIQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.145.137 with SMTP id ju9mr1363365icc.36.1393351866784; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:11:06 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:11:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:11:06 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: w9NOo58-uQw6Rgnia069e8OtCXM Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: Russ White Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e2b81122d504f33f0361 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/000boUkozvKHNMqJ0BPi0msu7lA Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" , Arturo Servin Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:11:12 -0000 --001a11c2e2b81122d504f33f0361 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Russ, dear all, On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Russ White wrote: > > (Speaking only for myself, and not for any organization of which I might > happen to be a member, work for, etc., etc.) > > > Why not? Too much structure certainly can stifle discussion. But too > little > > structure can easily lead to energy waste, duplication, lack of > information, > > etc. > > Structure doesn't necessarily solve these problems, in my experience. > Structure can be used to reduce wasted energy, but it can also be used to > force nonoptimal solutions by saying, "we've already discussed this; the > debate is over," even when no real debate has taken place. It can also be > used to freeze suboptimal solutions in place far beyond their marginal > usefulness. I completely agree. > What we often tend to forget is that the structure itself > accrues value (look at the value placed on holding a leadership position in > the IETF, for instance -- something that wouldn't have been really > thinkable > just ten years ago), and hence attempts to be self-perpetuating whether or > not it is still useful. > Don't forget that I work for a public administration. I'm sure I could show you a thing or two about "self-perpetuation". :) > > > Structure is just one of the ways in which human beings handle > complexity. > > Yes. But sometimes structure adds complexity that isn't necessary, as well. > Agree. > > (1) the world of Internet technologies is becoming more complex, > > because the Internet has become such a planetary success that it > underlies > > almost all kinds of human transactions for billions people on this > planet, > and > > > > (2) that this introduces the need to take into account other constraints > than > > simply > > "does this packet get from point A to point B as efficiently as > possible", > > > then I fail to see how we can disagree that it would be a good thing to > > introduce more structured ways (or, if you prefer, more "efficient", > > "effective", etc) to ensure that cross-constituency dialogue in this > "more > > complex" world truly scales. > > The problem here is this line of thinking assumes "more structure == more > efficient." It simply isn't true in all cases. The right structure is more > efficient than the wrong structure and no structure. The wrong structure is > often worse than no structure at all. The key point is not, "should we put > structure around this or not," the key point is, "how much, and where do we > need to apply structure." The underlying themes should be to err on the > side > of less structure rather than more, and allow structure to grow rather than > being imposed. We'll more often misread and put the wrong structure in > place > rather than making the right choice the first time, or in the "early days." > Well, I recognise that I should have said "better structured ways" rather than "more structured way" (don't forget I'm not a native speaker of the English language). I stand corrected - thanks. But let me also say that "the right structure is more efficient than the wrong structure" is a truism. I absolutely agree that the key question is "how much structure [should we put around this], and where to we need to apply structure". That is the question we are asking. As I said elsewhere - we are trying to have a dialogue, not impose anything that anyway it wouldn't be in our power to impose. But I do think that, IF we agree that better dialogue between the world of the Internet "technical community" and other worlds (public administrations, civil society, etc) is a "good thing", we not refrain from at least experimenting. You might disagree, but it seems clear to me that the approach "the mailing lists are open, you just need to subscribe" (which seems to me to be the standard 'modus operandi' around the IETF) has not produced a huge increase in involvement from other constituencies. > This argument can even be made in the case of government sponsored > research, > which can warp a market in the name of creating one. We're often reminded > of > the wonderful things government sponsored research has provided (TANG, > anyone?); we're not often reminded of the many and varied mistakes > governments have made in choosing one technology over another, etc. (TANG, > anyone?). I know this will make some folks mad (and I apologize in advance > for anyone who's offended) -- but, IMHO, BGPSEC is a case in point (not the > RPKI, but BGPSEC proper). Government money has warped the discussion to the > point that useful discussion can no longer take place. The technology was > chosen before the requirements were actually investigated, and no proper > evaluation of actual tradeoffs was taken into consideration. Rather, one > problem was pinpointed that one government sponsored solution could > "solve," > and all effort, since then, has gone into "solving" that one problem, > regardless of what else must be considered "out of bounds," etc., to get > there. IMHO, this end result isn't a good piece of technology, and it > doesn't solve the problems that need to be solved. > This is an interesting discussion to have but, just to be clear, I don't see much connection with the policy statement made by the European Commission on 12.2.2014, which originated this debate. > Hence there is both potential danger, as well as potential "progress," down > this path. We should be aware of both, and try not to override the natural > progression of things on a technology front. Perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think that there is such a thing as a "natural progression of things on a technology front". There are human choices, with implications for human beings, behind and after such progression(s). It's not a matter of "overriding" them, but simply be aware that they exist, make sure they are visible, and debated with everyone they need to be debated with. Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --001a11c2e2b81122d504f33f0361 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Russ, dear all,

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Russ White <russw@riw.= us> wrote:

(Speaking only for myself, and not for any organization of which I might happen to be a member, work for, etc., etc.)

> Why not? Too much structure certainly can stifle discussion. But too little
> structure can easily lead to energy waste, duplication, lack of
information,
> etc.

Structure doesn't necessarily solve these problems, in my experie= nce.
Structure can be used to reduce wasted energy, but it can also be used to force nonoptimal solutions by saying, "we've already discussed thi= s; the
debate is over," even when no real debate has taken place. It can also= be
used to freeze suboptimal solutions in place far beyond their marginal
usefulness.

I completely agree.
<= div>=A0
What we often tend to forget is= that the structure itself
accrues value (look at the value placed on holding a leadership position in=
the IETF, for instance -- something that wouldn't have been really thin= kable
just ten years ago), and hence attempts to be self-perpetuating whether or<= br> not it is still useful.

Don't forge= t that I work for a public administration. I'm sure I could show youa thing or two about "self-perpetuation". :)
=A0

> Structure is just one of the ways in which human beings handle complex= ity.

Yes. But sometimes structure adds complexity that isn't necessary= , as well.

Agree.
=A0
> (1) the world of Internet technologies is becoming more complex,
> because the Internet has become such a planetary success that it under= lies
> almost all kinds of human transactions for billions people on this pla= net,
and
>
> (2) that this introduces the need to take into account other constrain= ts
than
> simply
> "does this packet get from point A to point B as efficiently as p= ossible",

> then I fail to see how we can disagree that it would be a good thing t= o
> introduce more structured =A0ways (or, if you prefer, more "effic= ient",
> "effective", etc) to ensure that cross-constituency dialogue= in this
"more
> complex" world truly scales.

The problem here is this line of thinking assumes "more structur= e =3D=3D more
efficient." It simply isn't true in all cases. The right structure= is more
efficient than the wrong structure and no structure. The wrong structure is=
often worse than no structure at all. The key point is not, "should we= put
structure around this or not," the key point is, "how much, and w= here do we
need to apply structure." The underlying themes should be to err on th= e side
of less structure rather than more, and allow structure to grow rather than=
being imposed. We'll more often misread and put the wrong structure in = place
rather than making the right choice the first time, or in the "early d= ays."

Well, I recognise that I sho= uld have said "better structured ways" rather than
"more = structured way" (don't forget I'm not a native speaker of the = English
language). I stand corrected - thanks.

But let me also say that &quo= t;the right structure is more efficient than the wrong
structure" = is a truism.

I absolutely agree that the key question is = "how much structure [should we put
around this], and where to we need to apply structure". That is the qu= estion
we are asking. As I said elsewhere - we are trying to = have a dialogue, not
impose anything that anyway it wouldn't be in o= ur power to impose.

But I do think that, IF we agree that better dialogue betwee= n the world of
the Internet "technical community" and other wo= rlds (public administrations,
civil society, etc) is a "good thing&= quot;, we not refrain from at least experimenting.
You might disagree, but it seems clear to me that the approach &= quot;the mailing
lists are open, you just need to subscribe" (which= seems to me to be the
standard 'modus operandi' around the IETF= ) has not produced a huge increase
in involvement from other constituencies.
=A0
This argument can even be made in the case of government sponsored research= ,
which can warp a market in the name of creating one. We're often remind= ed of
the wonderful things government sponsored research has provided (TANG,
anyone?); we're not often reminded of the many and varied mistakes
governments have made in choosing one technology over another, etc. (TANG,<= br> anyone?). I know this will make some folks mad (and I apologize in advance<= br> for anyone who's offended) -- but, IMHO, BGPSEC is a case in point (not= the
RPKI, but BGPSEC proper). Government money has warped the discussion to the=
point that useful discussion can no longer take place. The technology was chosen before the requirements were actually investigated, and no proper evaluation of actual tradeoffs was taken into consideration. Rather, one problem was pinpointed that one government sponsored solution could "s= olve,"
and all effort, since then, has gone into "solving" that one prob= lem,
regardless of what else must be considered "out of bounds," etc.,= to get
there. IMHO, this end result isn't a good piece of technology, and it doesn't solve the problems that need to be solved.

This is an interesting discussion to have but, just to be c= lear, I don't see
much connection with the policy statement made by = the European Commission
on 12.2.2014, which originated this debate.
=A0
Hence there is both potential danger, as well as potential "progress,&= quot; down
this path. We should be aware of both, and try not to override the natural<= br> progression of things on a technology front.

Perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement here. I don't think that t= here
is such a thing as a "natural progression of things on a techn= ology front". There
are human choices, with implications for human beings, behind and after suc= h
progression(s). It's not a matter of "overriding" them,= but simply be aware that
they exist, make sure they are visible, and de= bated with everyone they need
to be debated with.

Best,

Andrea

--
I s= peak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in= mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea= .glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro --001a11c2e2b81122d504f33f0361-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 10:38:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289EA1A063A for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:38:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.423 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iYlXmm7vM5kd for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:38:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x22b.google.com (mail-ig0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871631A0296 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:38:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l13so2975029iga.4 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:38:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7Sv4e4yoV+GvFt4XBI6xIVsNupi0Q9T/v7esCiCvDSM=; b=1DG/yMuWRxgwEvVS2OqgTHYJsgc70dcZ8OkKpadmj3lNLkiywykv4fvUfdXC09UoYT FRZUT/OnxOiv1DLSQ/BxMIFy9sG75RV54A2ALT6tTwcOP6TzPrygQOTZTUtpXGxjQ1Og xjKEev2uXlA7FK4KUfdFPonRSJvwG16giGXtaLhJtpYuGl76rNkF4sJe0CPA4irM7SAu HcsiWvn8tQ3FDC3h01uUWh1l2dTDGzqMklEZfrQNcLf/FG/iEwI7WKPBXcLBLmgOZU+2 7E03P/E9FLF4YOuMqROTHCtxonZee9B3kbodMRTa7lQsTRRAsebPtMjAHsOTxGoTpDgG jGug== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.171.134 with SMTP id nu6mr1386801icc.92.1393353512607; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:38:32 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:38:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8B0ED@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8B0ED@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:38:32 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: IfU1TYoZDMLArxr19I__qlVOWp0 Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2f8ba2a67c604f33f653e Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/cuvzw35VUYj6bXVZ1s9sP37SvKQ Cc: Russ White , "internetgovtech@iab.org" , Arturo Servin Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:38:48 -0000 --001a11c2f8ba2a67c604f33f653e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Alejandro, dear all, I confess that I have often difficulties understanding your quite synthetic prose (my fault undoubtedly) but... On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote: > Russ, > > mostly +1. > > It's the physiology that counts, not the anatomy. > > If there were a clear and flagrant need for meta-technical considerations > in technical standards-setting, which is posited here as a European point > of view, wouldn't the EU already have bridled ETSI with it? (and no, I'm > not promoting this idea - it is a reductio ad absurdum argument.) Is the > OOXML story of Europe-as-fast-track a harbinger? > First of all, you will appreciate that we do NOT specifically mention the IETF in the Communication which includes the passage under consideration here. The IETF is one (very important) entity developing Internet technology (or technology specifications). But this is an IAB mailing list, so I guess it would be bizarre to talk about other organisations. Secondly, ETSI has been working on issues such as energy efficiency, accessibility (for persons with disabilities) etc; and has done so in cooperation with EU Institutions and bodies, as well as other stakeholders, as is its mandate to do. I will freely admit I'm not an "ETSI expert", so I'll be happy to put you in touch with more knowledgeable people if you wish. Thirdly, you use of the term "bridle". That's how you might see it, but all the Commission is proposing is to have a reflection / dialogue on the opportunity for better structured, multi-stakeholder engagement and discussions on the relationships between technology and public policy issues. I'm not sure that's enough to qualify for the term. ;) Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --001a11c2f8ba2a67c604f33f653e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Alejandro, dear all,

I confess that I have oft= en difficulties understanding your quite synthetic prose (my fault undoubte= dly) but...

On= Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Russ,

mostly +1.

It's the physiology that counts, not the anatomy.

If there were a clear and flagrant need for meta-technical considerations i= n technical standards-setting, which is posited here as a European point of= view, wouldn't the EU already have bridled ETSI with it? (and no, I= 9;m not promoting this idea - it is a reductio ad absurdum argument.) Is th= e OOXML story of Europe-as-fast-track a harbinger?

First= of all, you will appreciate that we do NOT specifically mention the IETF i= n the Communication which includes the passage under consideration here. Th= e IETF is one (very important) entity developing Internet technology (or te= chnology specifications). But this is an IAB mailing list, so I guess it wo= uld be bizarre to talk about other organisations.

Secondly, ETSI has been working on issues such as energy efficiency, ac= cessibility (for persons with disabilities) etc; and has done so in coopera= tion with EU Institutions and bodies, as well as other stakeholders, as is = its mandate to do. I will freely admit I'm not an "ETSI expert&quo= t;, so I'll be happy to put you in touch with more knowledgeable people= if you wish.

Thirdly, you use of the term "bridle". That's how you mig= ht see it, but all the Commission is proposing is to have a reflection / di= alogue on the opportunity for better structured, multi-stakeholder engageme= nt and discussions on the relationships between technology and public polic= y issues. I'm not sure that's enough to qualify for the term. ;)
Best,

Andrea
--001a11c2f8ba2a67c604f33f653e-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 11:55:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA361A00D7 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:55:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_MX=0.535, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HK_NAME_DR=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z6NrYXZjgKkm for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:55:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.unam.mx (mail.unam.mx [132.248.10.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2391A0171 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:55:28 -0800 (PST) From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" To: Andrea Glorioso Thread-Topic: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement Thread-Index: AQHPKLWrS7m0J9szWkyFwhDqoqn0OJqziv6AgAA655iAEm70AIAAdfCA//+kAMKAAHXxAP//s0E4 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:05:42 +0000 Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8C1D9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8B0ED@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: es-MX, en-US Content-Language: es-MX X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [132.248.103.249] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8C1D9W8EXMBDPunaml_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/8Q6kqlSFTrXQinUvtM2oDQoHv8A Cc: Russ White , "internetgovtech@iab.org" , Arturo Servin Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:55:33 -0000 --_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8C1D9W8EXMBDPunaml_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andrea, to cut to the chase, "bridle" is the test to which any redesign of technica= l standards development organizations should be subjected. That includes of= course redesigns that are not internal but instead just place a group of b= enevolent overseers on top. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Qu=EDmica UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE M=C9XICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C= 0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com [sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com] en nombr= e de Andrea Glorioso [andrea@digitalpolicy.it] Enviado el: martes, 25 de febrero de 2014 12:38 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: Russ White; Arturo Servin; internetgovtech@iab.org Asunto: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commis= sion statement Dear Alejandro, dear all, I confess that I have often difficulties understanding your quite synthetic= prose (my fault undoubtedly) but... On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: Russ, mostly +1. It's the physiology that counts, not the anatomy. If there were a clear and flagrant need for meta-technical considerations i= n technical standards-setting, which is posited here as a European point of= view, wouldn't the EU already have bridled ETSI with it? (and no, I'm not = promoting this idea - it is a reductio ad absurdum argument.) Is the OOXML = story of Europe-as-fast-track a harbinger? First of all, you will appreciate that we do NOT specifically mention the I= ETF in the Communication which includes the passage under consideration her= e. The IETF is one (very important) entity developing Internet technology (= or technology specifications). But this is an IAB mailing list, so I guess = it would be bizarre to talk about other organisations. Secondly, ETSI has been working on issues such as energy efficiency, access= ibility (for persons with disabilities) etc; and has done so in cooperation= with EU Institutions and bodies, as well as other stakeholders, as is its = mandate to do. I will freely admit I'm not an "ETSI expert", so I'll be hap= py to put you in touch with more knowledgeable people if you wish. Thirdly, you use of the term "bridle". That's how you might see it, but all= the Commission is proposing is to have a reflection / dialogue on the oppo= rtunity for better structured, multi-stakeholder engagement and discussions= on the relationships between technology and public policy issues. I'm not = sure that's enough to qualify for the term. ;) Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it= in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro --_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8C1D9W8EXMBDPunaml_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Andrea,

to cut to the chase, "bridle" is the test to which any redes= ign of technical standards development organizations should be subjected. T= hat includes of course redesigns that are not internal but instead just pla= ce a group of benevolent overseers on top.

Alejandro Pisanty

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Qu=EDmica UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
<= /div>

 

+52-1-554144447= 5 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE M=C9XICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C= 0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .&n= bsp; .  .  .  .  .  . 

Desde: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com [sama= .digitalpolicy@gmail.com] en nombre de Andrea Glorioso [andrea@digitalpolic= y.it]
Enviado el: martes, 25 de febrero de 2014 12:38
Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
CC: Russ White; Arturo Servin; internetgovtech@iab.org
Asunto: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European= Commission statement

Dear Alejandro, dear all,

I confess that I have often difficulties understanding your quite synthetic= prose (my fault undoubtedly) but...

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Dr. Alejandro P= isanty Baruch <a= pisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Russ,

mostly +1.

It's the physiology that counts, not the anatomy.

If there were a clear and flagrant need for meta-technical considerations i= n technical standards-setting, which is posited here as a European point of= view, wouldn't the EU already have bridled ETSI with it? (and no, I'm not = promoting this idea - it is a reductio ad absurdum argument.) Is the OOXML story of Europe-as-fast-track a harbin= ger?

First of all, you will appreciate that we do NOT= specifically mention the IETF in the Communication which includes the pass= age under consideration here. The IETF is one (very important) entity devel= oping Internet technology (or technology specifications). But this is an IAB mailing list, so I guess it would be b= izarre to talk about other organisations.

Secondly, ETSI has been working on issues such as energy efficiency, access= ibility (for persons with disabilities) etc; and has done so in cooperation= with EU Institutions and bodies, as well as other stakeholders, as is its = mandate to do. I will freely admit I'm not an "ETSI expert", so I'll be happy to put you in touch w= ith more knowledgeable people if you wish.

Thirdly, you use of the term "bridle". That's how you might see i= t, but all the Commission is proposing is to have a reflection / dialogue o= n the opportunity for better structured, multi-stakeholder engagement and d= iscussions on the relationships between technology and public policy issues. I'm not sure that's enough to qualify for the te= rm. ;)

Best,

Andrea

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it= in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--_000_6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8C1D9W8EXMBDPunaml_-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 12:20:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CF61A037A for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:20:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9FQEUIxkoBYT for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FAA1A024A for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76ED864022A; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:20:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (pool-70-106-134-121.clppva.east.verizon.net [70.106.134.121]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7C8864022B; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:20:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <530CFB19.3080607@joelhalpern.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:20:41 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Glorioso References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FD9183.8090101@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/fMq4PNhHYgktpkCyEm3YWil62cs Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:20:51 -0000 [Heavily snipped, and I hope I have not missed another thread that answers my question.] When I read the EU statement, the short section of government involvement left me confused as to what was wanted. maybe, using this as a basis, you can help me understand what might be desired (as you see it personally. I am not asking you to provide a statemen for the EU on what they want.) On 2/25/14, 4:48 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: ... > To be clear: I am not suggesting we need a new SDO. But I think it's useful > to put very clearly on the table what would be the pros and cons of > having one, > and this is why I asked the question. > > However, if there is a shared agreement that more structured and > bi-directional > dialogues and engagements between the "technical community" and the world > of governments / public authorities would be beneficial (and quite > frankly I'm > not convinced we are there yet) then one can find middle solutions between > 'ad hoc' liaisons and new, full-blown SDOs. What I get confused about is whether having folks in the room, who come from government, and can articulate the issues they see, is sufficient. That is what has been done in the past. It seemed to work. But there seems to be a desire, maybe in my head misreading your text, for a structure that more formally recognizes the government role. Is that what you think is needed? If so, can you explain what sort of role and why one might want it? One factor to keep in mind is that one making some standards that are not used is fine. It is in fact inevitable. That is part of why we call these voluntary. Yours, Joel M. Halpern > > Ciao, > > Andrea > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep > it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro ... From nobody Tue Feb 25 14:47:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1C81A0298 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:47:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.363 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xqd2tcE25vVS for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:47:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66131A02AF for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:47:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.156.84]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s1PMkkbn000329 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:46:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1393368419; bh=mnY58giSOExAWZx7bw4lY7v4kijDeD1fcWybHDGM2y0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=aL/uSUc4uoseCEFDbajBumirFqOILyHhN/x9fKV/zZanjcB4LaD4r6ldxIAEpCnjO JBqJe1Z3bkGauE0NVntyNdwAKWouPqMNtfEgkiGMkd1IRpkT/TU9GoSEgd5tCPdy5k mV2PyNaqFfiBkCic8MyYb/2spIMRdfU9ImJojPMk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1393368419; i=@elandsys.com; bh=mnY58giSOExAWZx7bw4lY7v4kijDeD1fcWybHDGM2y0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=P1V1nVsii7RxrkHlhu5yy3zmHzFL9+Tp87y2qYLKBhZGRqBcuSpuUXf7W8g4mA53r K84GOWjomOFj3zjEqqsDNgHq5yULyeAP1cMDrIlr/bjfDfYL/KwHs8qO5WD46zE5o3 jw5qoxbSfGODWB46VUPhYxvQhLp1r4LXS8NsjOSA= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140225114956.0db9bf88@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:43:03 -0800 To: Andrea Glorioso , Russ White From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/8aikK_C-KoW2c73WNltmlCA_V4g Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: [Internetgovtech] Involvement from other constituencies (was: US Government response to the European Commission statement) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 22:47:11 -0000 Hi Andrea, At 10:11 25-02-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >But I do think that, IF we agree that better dialogue between the world of >the Internet "technical community" and other worlds (public administrations, >civil society, etc) is a "good thing", we not refrain from at least >experimenting. >You might disagree, but it seems clear to me that the approach "the mailing >lists are open, you just need to subscribe" (which seems to me to be the >standard 'modus operandi' around the IETF) has not produced a huge increase >in involvement from other constituencies. It is better to take some decisions, e.g. building a wind farm, with the participation of: (a) Government (b) The private sector (c) Civil society (a) and (c) do not participate in the IETF to the same extent as (b). I read what was quoted above as increasing the involvement of (a) and (c). I agree that having a venue open to anyone, in this case the mailing list, does not produce the huge increase in involvement. There are some parts of the IETF where the work would benefit from the participation of governments. Most governments do not see a need to spend money on that. Civil society would not have the financial means or the expertise to participate. If one does not want civil society to be used as a Trojan horse the only avenue is for the relevant government to pick the tab. As I wrote the above I am left with the sense that I looked at the matter from the wrong end. The most that can be done at this point in time is to experiment. The problem with experiments is that one would have to accept failures. Regards, S. Moonesamy From nobody Wed Feb 26 01:00:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A671A0155 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:00:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.423 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v7RNJpF1HwGK for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:00:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4970A1A012B for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:00:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hl1so935693igb.5 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:00:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=p4IzJt/DwME8nkBO2oQSxSra6nGlM2pTQqlKLdolehQ=; b=y/MnqWLy/zxBBP2WrxTkR7tFGSIQi6kt6Zg3xHIH/tTatw4ajCJe5W5HydOf6mpGWH 2IEMv+ekh57vYSdDD1SGfD0gnT9Br2WY/95XEXcAV2vVIdlyHU5UEdIBfHY/Pwh48VHU DBG0qLQwE4xvlliG8soFAm96fqdH1Mrg35ZDIGrTFqehnw23hj4hzz4y71hYUqmZ0LAS gM8J4Rx1mrC/Bmact6iH8eZkC9cFF1jfUdtn16Q392ILDWQfrLF2tt5ZP6rh3rS4DE+J xI3Qrc/WFgYNZMXnWudzc8UsTqTp/OcrqwhLIqetbaYNKYo0a3EMYVwEi7+C9jmvnotw jc5w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.176.131 with SMTP id be3mr1449257icb.2.1393405252024; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:00:52 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:00:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140225114956.0db9bf88@resistor.net> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> <6.2.5.6.2.20140225114956.0db9bf88@resistor.net> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:00:51 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zkVAdUHrR7qIAU-z4Sl0UTzT16E Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: S Moonesamy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8f0e133ebe04f34b71e2 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/C1hYKJC_tfskY_oPkdhx4vg_ZLY Cc: Russ White , "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Involvement from other constituencies (was: US Government response to the European Commission statement) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:00:56 -0000 --90e6ba6e8f0e133ebe04f34b71e2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear SM, On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:43 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Andrea, > At 10:11 25-02-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > >> But I do think that, IF we agree that better dialogue between the world of >> the Internet "technical community" and other worlds (public >> administrations, >> civil society, etc) is a "good thing", we not refrain from at least >> experimenting. >> You might disagree, but it seems clear to me that the approach "the >> mailing >> lists are open, you just need to subscribe" (which seems to me to be the >> standard 'modus operandi' around the IETF) has not produced a huge >> increase >> in involvement from other constituencies. >> > > It is better to take some decisions, e.g. building a wind farm, with the > participation of: > > (a) Government > > (b) The private sector > > (c) Civil society > > (a) and (c) do not participate in the IETF to the same extent as (b). I > read what was quoted above as increasing the involvement of (a) and (c). I > agree that having a venue open to anyone, in this case the mailing list, > does not produce the huge increase in involvement. > > There are some parts of the IETF where the work would benefit from the > participation of governments. Most governments do not see a need to spend > money on that. Civil society would not have the financial means or the > expertise to participate. If one does not want civil society to be used as > a Trojan horse the only avenue is for the relevant government to pick the > tab. > > As I wrote the above I am left with the sense that I looked at the matter > from the wrong end. The most that can be done at this point in time is to > experiment. The problem with experiments is that one would have to accept > failures. > Thanks for summarising part of the discussions we have had until now. I don't think there is a "right" or a "wrong" end to look at this, or other issues. It is of course possible to read in other people / organisations' positions things that are simply not there, but I don't think you have done so. The only thing I would like to underline is that the European Commission's Communication on Internet Policy and Governance, and specifically section 6 (which has been until now the focus of the discussion, although I don't think it is advisable to read each section of the Communication in complete isolation from the others) is clearly not prescriptive. As I said elsewhere, this is both because the Commission is well aware that its power to "prescribe" something in this field is limited; but most importantly, because it does not believe that "prescribing" is the right recipe for the challenges ahead. Or, in other words, experimenting is exactly what we are looking for. And of course, when experimenting, one has to accept failures. What is harder to accept is to assume from the start that the experiment would lead to failure (unless it can be shown that it has already been tried and failed - I'm not sure that's the case). Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --90e6ba6e8f0e133ebe04f34b71e2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear SM,

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:43 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elan= dsys.com> wrote:
Hi Andrea,
At 10:11 25-02-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
But I do think that, IF we agree that better dialogue between the world of<= br> the Internet "technical community" and other worlds (public admin= istrations,
civil society, etc) is a "good thing", we not refrain from at lea= st experimenting.
You might disagree, but it seems clear to me that the approach "the ma= iling
lists are open, you just need to subscribe" (which seems to me to be t= he
standard 'modus operandi' around the IETF) has not produced a huge = increase
in involvement from other constituencies.

It is better to take some decisions, e.g. building a wind farm, with the pa= rticipation of:

=A0 (a) Government

=A0 (b) The private sector

=A0 (c) Civil society

(a) and (c) do not participate in the IETF to the same extent as (b). =A0I = read what was quoted above as increasing the involvement of (a) and (c). = =A0I agree that having a venue open to anyone, in this case the mailing lis= t, does not produce the huge increase in involvement.

There are some parts of the IETF where the work would benefit from the part= icipation of governments. =A0Most governments do not see a need to spend mo= ney on that. =A0Civil society would not have the financial means or the exp= ertise to participate. =A0If one does not want civil society to be used as = a Trojan horse the only avenue is for the relevant government to pick the t= ab.

As I wrote the above I am left with the sense that I looked at the matter f= rom the wrong end. =A0The most that can be done at this point in time is to= experiment. =A0The problem with experiments is that one would have to acce= pt failures.

Thanks for summarising part of the discussions we hav= e had until now.=A0 I don't think there is a "right" or a &qu= ot;wrong" end to look at this, or other issues. It is of course possib= le to read in other people / organisations' positions things that are s= imply not there, but I don't think you have done so.

The only thing I would like to underline is that the European Commissio= n's Communication on Internet Policy and Governance, and specifically s= ection 6 (which has been until now the focus of the discussion, although I = don't think it is advisable to read each section of the Communication i= n complete isolation from the others) is clearly not prescriptive. As I sai= d elsewhere, this is both because the Commission is well aware that its pow= er to "prescribe" something in this field is limited; but most im= portantly, because it does not believe that "prescribing" is the = right recipe for the challenges ahead.

Or, in other words, experimenting is exactly what we are loo= king for. And of course, when experimenting, one has to accept failures. Wh= at is harder to accept is to assume from the start that the experiment woul= d lead to failure (unless it can be shown that it has already been tried an= d failed - I'm not sure that's the case).

Best,

Andrea

--
I speak only for myself. S= ometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
Twitter: @and= reaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--90e6ba6e8f0e133ebe04f34b71e2-- From nobody Wed Feb 26 01:24:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507691A0178 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:24:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vZcGVvbrYKBg for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:24:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960A51A0149 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:24:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id uy17so1685253igb.3 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:24:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NmSbANBFts37StN4mq2cpebplLwM3N17HPge1yojryE=; b=KgnkzCHL/sBZzrtpCTizONoeVBjOm8tTUoO3TZbESgEpAWxpKdAFM3Qy/vpi4Xcd5f PWAfrjiWS5H8t7/lE5eSzJa4eqxRUG0Wb+h6xdeHeG9rhMuo258tcD9zusXzqirD5kT+ EQOre3bxqJ3pullDahHyNxe0wzyPy95pu+Xxh0yVcXDq2/AkAUhGGTqBbfM6IGJglE7M eSjVJ6j181q8HN5MH3Hzm7cUPWmaMHgpgHbCs+YJi8n7pnIEWsUvXI395A9cauZ2xa5p T3igaGnOJjvsb0MM2YiIElwPSyXDDXwNgilvKzcasVlfxxVw4O0AVLtVqutNYofdY/Wi 0zVQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.214.80 with SMTP id gz16mr4361795icb.6.1393406643402; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:24:03 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:24:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8C1D9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8B0ED@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E8C1D9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:24:03 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 54lMIiLy2cFkeVcXnUKYL0MeqW4 Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30426cc201fbef04f34bc49e Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/-l5OQeYbjeR9tyVwfofkat5bTBs Cc: Russ White , "internetgovtech@iab.org" , Arturo Servin Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:24:06 -0000 --20cf30426cc201fbef04f34bc49e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Alejandro, On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote: > Andrea, > > to cut to the chase, "bridle" is the test to which any redesign of > technical standards development organizations should be subjected. That > includes of course redesigns that are not internal but instead just place a > group of benevolent overseers on top. > Indeed, that's a good idea: let's cut to the chase. Could you please point me at which parts of the Communication on Internet Policy and Governance - which is a formal position of the European Commission, to which it is politically and in certain cases legally held to account - state (or, you read as stating) that: - technical standards development organisations should be redesigned - a group of benevolent overseers should be placed on top of technical standards development organisations Thanks, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --20cf30426cc201fbef04f34bc49e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Alejandro,

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty B= aruch <apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Andrea,

to cut to the chase, "bridle" is the test to which any redes= ign of technical standards development organizations should be subjected. T= hat includes of course redesigns that are not internal but instead just pla= ce a group of benevolent overseers on top.

Indeed, that's a good idea= : let's cut to the chase.

Could you please point me at which par= ts of the Communication on Internet Policy and Governance - which is a form= al position of the European Commission, to which it is politically and in c= ertain cases legally held to account - state (or, you read as stating) that= :

- technical standards development organisations should be re= designed
- a group of benevolent overseers should be placed o= n top of technical standards development organisations

Thanks,

Andrea

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I d= o not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso<= br>Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--20cf30426cc201fbef04f34bc49e-- From nobody Wed Feb 26 01:42:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73CB1A0188 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:41:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.423 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQO5oZg3dRPK for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:41:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD951A0172 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:41:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id to1so447315ieb.30 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:41:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=D7Z/HUSElX6qDUd7/1BJhkw9KbPk6WiAAhUFkXrT3go=; b=pEifeneZd2pRJhm6MlN0bR/8/af4VVJDKcobo1o9/EAKiNUjay5aKrsz6FwDsUtLZo SpPZKWoO3ikjxiGnJ9ULhIJMmO6vPzblO6k+pTDOVw045XdMmrBhWszqA6GN6zjrnJwa mNsHKNbQHYNVBghxCa6sKA+wEg7YUvSbQHccXsvHSHzBmsrdjmR1Hf6820jDsG1+1WLd TlGQEwO/SREJ+Q2BaFL4XdY3ZYM1KwCUm1Bow+W9+nZsIeQSWGlFKMPNzz1wzv97d+A2 5fLRGaGS8jAkYM3bH0kC7GcaA52+2F+kipPZV2vUh1tm/QPBG1YbgQ/ZzUKfjePZ+a2n zkdQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.51.17.40 with SMTP id gb8mr2026756igd.18.1393407702236; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:41:42 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:41:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <530CFB19.3080607@joelhalpern.com> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FD9183.8090101@gmail.com> <530CFB19.3080607@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:41:42 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: cXvPbXJW7IJV3kjAmymaJ6y6dy0 Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: "Joel M. Halpern" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c2e21e87c704f34c0350 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/WG6Otxyp4gEQ0Czr0MdaAY3TenE Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:41:45 -0000 --001a1134c2e21e87c704f34c0350 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Joel, On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > [Heavily snipped, and I hope I have not missed another thread that answers > my question.] > > When I read the EU statement, the short section of government involvement > left me confused as to what was wanted. maybe, using this as a basis, you > can help me understand what might be desired (as you see it personally. I > am not asking you to provide a statemen for the EU on what they want.) > It is a bit difficult for me to tell you how I see things personally on the basis of a document which states an official position of the European Commission. But I'll try to walk that fine line. First of all, however, please note that the Communication from the European Commission (section 6) does not call for "government involvement", but "*to strengthen (and where appropriate create) structured mechanisms to allow regular, early and truly inclusive upstream participation, review and comment in technical decisions*". Involvement of goverments / public authorities is part of the broader involvement of other constituencies. (I would also like to point out that section 6 includes another action, i.e. "The Commission, together with interested parties, including the European Internet industry, proposes to convene a series of workshops with international experts in law, ethics, social sciences, economics, international relations and technology. This expected output will be concrete and actionable recommendations to ensure coherence between existing normative frameworks and new forms of Internet-enabled norm-setting", which is more 'theoretical' and to my understanding has not been the subject of discussions so far). On 2/25/14, 4:48 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > ... > > To be clear: I am not suggesting we need a new SDO. But I think it's >> useful >> to put very clearly on the table what would be the pros and cons of >> having one, >> and this is why I asked the question. >> >> However, if there is a shared agreement that more structured and >> bi-directional >> dialogues and engagements between the "technical community" and the world >> of governments / public authorities would be beneficial (and quite >> frankly I'm >> not convinced we are there yet) then one can find middle solutions between >> 'ad hoc' liaisons and new, full-blown SDOs. >> > > What I get confused about is whether having folks in the room, who come > from government, and can articulate the issues they see, is sufficient. > That is what has been done in the past. It seemed to work. > I think the question is - can we make this approach more effective and scalable, taking into account that the IETF is not the only organisation doing "technical stuff" when it comes to the Internet? > But there seems to be a desire, maybe in my head misreading your text, for > a structure that more formally recognizes the government role. Is that > what you think is needed? If so, can you explain what sort of role and why > one might want it? > No, sorry, that's a misunderstanding. As I said above, what the Commission is calling for is a strengthening (i.e. we fully recognise certain mechanisms already exist) or, where appropriate, the creation of "*structured mechanisms to allow regular, early and truly inclusive upstream participation, review and comment in technical decisions*". This is not about "formally recognising" the role of governments / public authorities, but ensuring that there are effective, efficient and scalable methods / tools / ways to assess, as early as possible, how technical specifications can take into account public policy concerns. As I said, we are quite flexible on identifying ways to do that, without necessarily having to "formally" recognise anything. One factor to keep in mind is that one making some standards that are not > used is fine. It is in fact inevitable. That is part of why we call these > voluntary. > Sure. I don't understand how this relates to the discussion, though. Ciao, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --001a1134c2e21e87c704f34c0350 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Joel,

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joel= halpern.com> wrote:
[Heavily snipped, and I h= ope I have not missed another thread that answers my question.]

When I read the EU statement, the short section of government involvement l= eft me confused as to what was wanted. =A0maybe, using this as a basis, you= can help me understand what might be desired (as you see it personally. = =A0I am not asking you to provide a statemen for the EU on what they want.)=

It is a bit difficult for me to tell you h= ow I see things personally on the basis of a document which states an offic= ial position of the European Commission. But I'll try to walk that fine= line.

First of all, however, please note that the Communication from the Euro= pean Commission (section 6) does not call for "government involvement&= quot;, but "to strengthen (and where appropriate create) structured= mechanisms to allow regular, early and truly inclusive upstream participat= ion, review and comment in technical decisions". Involvement of go= verments / public authorities is part of the broader involvement of other c= onstituencies.

(I would also like to point out that section 6 includes anot= her action, i.e. "The Commission, together with interested parties, in= cluding the European Internet industry, proposes to convene a series of wor= kshops with international experts in law, ethics, social sciences, economic= s, international relations and technology. This expected output will be con= crete and actionable recommendations to ensure coherence between existing n= ormative frameworks and new forms of Internet-enabled norm-setting", w= hich is more 'theoretical' and to my understanding has not been the= subject of discussions so far).

On 2/25/14, 4:48 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
...

To be clear: I am not suggesting we need a new SDO. But I think it's us= eful
to put very clearly on the table what would be the pros and cons of
having one,
and this is why I asked the question.

However, if there is a shared agreement that more structured and
bi-directional
dialogues and engagements between the "technical community" and t= he world
of governments / public authorities would be beneficial (and quite
frankly I'm
not convinced we are there yet) then one can find middle solutions between<= br> 'ad hoc' liaisons and new, full-blown SDOs.

What I get confused about is whether having folks in the room, who come fro= m government, and can articulate the issues they see, is sufficient. =A0Tha= t is what has been done in the past. =A0It seemed to work.

I think the question is - can we make this approach mor= e effective and scalable, taking into account that the IETF is not the only= organisation doing "technical stuff" when it comes to the Intern= et?
=A0
But there seems to be a desire, maybe in my head misreading your text, for = a structure that more formally recognizes the government role. =A0Is that w= hat you think is needed? =A0If so, can you explain what sort of role and wh= y one might want it?

No, sorry, that's a misunderstanding. = As I said above, what the Commission is calling for is a strengthening (i.e= . we fully recognise certain mechanisms already exist) or, where appropriat= e, the creation of "structured mechanisms to allow regular, early a= nd truly inclusive upstream participation, review and comment in technical = decisions". This is not about "formally recognising" the= role of governments / public authorities, but ensuring that there are effe= ctive, efficient and scalable methods / tools / ways to assess, as early as= possible, how technical specifications can take into account public policy= concerns. As I said, we are quite flexible on identifying ways to do that,= without necessarily having to "formally" recognise anything.

One factor to keep in mind is that one making some standards that are not u= sed is fine. =A0It is in fact inevitable. =A0That is part of why we call th= ese voluntary.

Sure. I don't unders= tand how this relates to the discussion, though.

Ciao,

Andrea

--
I speak only fo= r myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
Tw= itter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--001a1134c2e21e87c704f34c0350-- From nobody Wed Feb 26 05:30:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A878F1A0323 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:30:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vepMO52wkIRQ for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:30:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.riw.us (server.riw.us [162.144.32.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFE81A0321 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:30:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-098-122-144-218.nc.res.rr.com ([98.122.144.218]:49658 helo=RussPC) by server.riw.us with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:AES128-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WIeZE-0006q2-B1; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:30:32 +0000 From: "Russ White" To: "'Andrea Glorioso'" References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FD9183.8090101@gmail.com> <01a701cf3248$fac2ac90$f04805b0$@riw.us> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:30:31 -0500 Message-ID: <018d01cf32f6$eca825a0$c5f870e0$@riw.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJMFih2b/pqIL5HvUFCBvP9zfnmIAHwS+XUAcF8GWsC7qp9sgH+vKWhAszX6ToCRYMQCgJb3hQGAdISwhECnP4jHwI/k6oSAc9P27sBuA+1H5j7nM7A Content-Language: en-us X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.riw.us X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - riw.us X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.riw.us: authenticated_id: russw@riw.us X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/-uOCOIPziVoZlNecgkpGyAHBOhs Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:30:40 -0000 (again, not as a member of any specific organization, nor as an employee of any company, nor...) > Sure. But let me first of all observe that making the logical leap from the > notion of "sustainability" to that of "control", and on top of that reading in my > two paragraphs (which I quote for completeness below - note the final > sentence of the second paragraph please) any wish for governmental control > over their populations, is in my opinion quite surprising. I was asking you what you mean, rather than making a statement. > It almost looks like > you have some rather strong and well-formed prejudices towards public > authorities. Nice ad hominem attack. As it turns out, my worldview/philosophy is probably orthogonal to yours, but let's leave that aside for the moment (as much as possible, anyway). > In order to make sure that a technology, or set of technologies, is broadly > accepted by the general public / citizens, technical efficiency / effectiveness > (against some agreed benchmark) can hardly be the only criterion. The internet standards system is not based on "market acceptance." While standards are ultimately judged by the market (just as GM foods will be, for better or worse, because you ultimately can't _make_ people eat them), "the market" doesn't design these standards. Engineers do. In a sense, then, there already is an "oversight committee," that looks after internet standards. We aren't discussing total chaos verses government control here, we're discussing how governments should influence the standards process that already exists. Let's not devolve into a false dichotomy. > Market adoption is a valid proxy for success in many cases, but we know very > well that markets are far from perfect entities (probably that's my crypto- > socialist European soul speaking here). And especially when it comes to GPTs > (General Purpose Technologies) such as the Internet (which > would probably be best described as a set of different technologies) with its > many impacts on social, cultural, political phenomena, I'm not at all sure that I > would want "market success" to be the only criterion to judge the overall > impact of an Internet protocol / specification / technology. So what you seem to be saying is: "Governments should assess the political and social impact of technology choices, and have some way to input these impacts into the standards setting process." Can you verify this is what you are saying, or correct my misunderstanding? > So, to the notion of sustainability: if you ask a citizen on the street, I doubt > that he will judge "the Internet techies" only, or even mostly, on the basis of > whether protocol X is great at mitigating network congestion. The citizen on > the street is worried (depending on whom you ask) whether the Internet > can ensure his / her security, privacy, whether his / her children are > protected while they are online, whether "the Internet" will help him / her > find a better job or lose the one s/he has, etc. There is some mixture of the technical and social here... Security and privacy are clearly concerns the IETF has not taken seriously enough in the past (and even today, we're running in the wrong direction on some of these issues). Of course, I'm not certain we all agree on what "secure," and "private," really mean. Part of the conflict here is what the NSA (apparently, as a given instance) considers "secure and private," is a different definition than what I consider "secure and private." :-) > That's the "sustainablity" I am talking about. "Nice standards body you have there... I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to it." :-) > If, however, one accepts the notion that technological choices do have > broader impacts on society, I - and, most importantly, the Commission - > believe that it would be good to at least start a reflection on how such > interactions play out; and, to the extent possible and deemed useful, > to make sure that the dialogue, between those who "produce" technology > and those who "consume" it, does exist and is well structured. >From an engineering perspective, the question that matters is where the rubber meets the road. What do you (or the commission), think this interaction will look like? More involvement from government stakeholders in the process as it stands? Or an additional step someplace along the way to ensure any new protocol choices meet some sort of social standards setting (and by whom)? If this is what you're saying -- on what basis should governments evaluate the social and political impact of technologies? And how can governments have this sort of input without de facto overruling any and all technical considerations, in the end? My answer is -- governments should influence the standards like everyone else does, through providing technical expertise and determining which standards are applicable to specific technical problems. Not through any form of "formal oversight." The IETF has a process in which anyone can participate. I see the value of reaching out to government folks to show them the ropes. I don't see the value in adding some further layer to the standards process to get some form of government approval. :-) Russ From nobody Wed Feb 26 05:43:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AC01A032B for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:43:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hUeuQOce3hGv for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.riw.us (server.riw.us [162.144.32.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1211A02F5 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-098-122-144-218.nc.res.rr.com ([98.122.144.218]:50388 helo=RussPC) by server.riw.us with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:AES128-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WIelj-00071Q-85; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:43:27 +0000 From: "Russ White" To: "'Andrea Glorioso'" , "'Joel M. Halpern'" References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FD9183.8090101@gmail.com> <530CFB19.3080607@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:43:26 -0500 Message-ID: <01f001cf32f8$ba891d20$2f9b5760$@riw.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJMFih2b/pqIL5HvUFCBvP9zfnmIAHwS+XUAcF8GWsC7qp9sgH+vKWhAszX6ToCRYMQCgJb3hQGAdISwhECnP4jHwI/k6oSAR6yBG0CM4yOXJj9UYMA Content-Language: en-us X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.riw.us X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - riw.us X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.riw.us: authenticated_id: russw@riw.us X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/UoxrYS8Q6whHeJVrWGVpTwp3c-A Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:43:38 -0000 > But there seems to be a desire, maybe in my head misreading your > text, for a structure that more formally recognizes the government role. > Is that what you think is needed? If so, can you explain what sort of role and > why one might want it? > > No, sorry, that's a misunderstanding. As I said above, what the Commission is > calling for is a strengthening (i.e. we fully recognise certain mechanisms > already exist) or, where appropriate, the creation of "structured mechanisms > to allow regular, early and truly inclusive upstream participation, review and > comment in technical decisions". This is not about "formally recognising" the > role of governments / public authorities, but ensuring that there are > effective, efficient and scalable methods / tools / ways to assess, as early as > possible, how technical specifications can take into account public policy > concerns. > As I said, we are quite flexible on identifying ways to do that, without > necessarily having to "formally" recognise anything. But this is precisely where I'm confused. The two statements: "We don't want a formal process, just strengthening the ones that are already there." And "We want to create structured mechanisms to allow regular, early, and truly inclusive upstream participation..." Are in tension. Is the commission asking for new processes, or just for government folks to get more involved in the processes that already exist? Can you claify? :-) Russ From nobody Wed Feb 26 05:51:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2851A032E for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:51:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jUMUatUTnoaH for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:51:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55731A0321 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:51:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D49ED9309; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:51:08 +0100 (MET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id QRstaIOj-WlS; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:51:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from pb-10243.ethz.ch (pb-10243.ethz.ch [82.130.102.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: briant) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53702D9305; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:51:07 +0100 (MET) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9A8A79BE-1B3D-41B1-ACA8-A6E3D95E3315"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Brian Trammell In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:51:06 +0100 Message-Id: References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> <6.2.5.6.2.20140225114956.0db9bf88@resistor.net> To: Andrea Glorioso X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/6IMUEHzWs7VkrVQ-QzMWr47Aqqw Cc: Russ White , "internetgovtech@iab.org" , S Moonesamy Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Involvement from other constituencies (was: US Government response to the European Commission statement) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:51:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_9A8A79BE-1B3D-41B1-ACA8-A6E3D95E3315 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii hi Andrea, all, Zero hat disclaimer applies: I, as Andrea, speak only for myself. On 26 Feb 2014, at 10:00, Andrea Glorioso = wrote: > Thanks for summarising part of the discussions we have had until now. = I don't think there is a "right" or a "wrong" end to look at this, or = other issues. It is of course possible to read in other people / = organisations' positions things that are simply not there, but I don't = think you have done so.=20 >=20 > The only thing I would like to underline is that the European = Commission's Communication on Internet Policy and Governance, and = specifically section 6 (which has been until now the focus of the = discussion, although I don't think it is advisable to read each section = of the Communication in complete isolation from the others) is clearly = not prescriptive. As I said elsewhere, this is both because the = Commission is well aware that its power to "prescribe" something in this = field is limited; but most importantly, because it does not believe that = "prescribing" is the right recipe for the challenges ahead. The language there is... to me... vague enough that one could read it = differently. And this is, I think, part of the problem. RFCs can appear = obfuscated to people who are not well-versed in their peculiarities. The = same holds for communications from the Commission. So I'm very happy to = hear that this is your interpretation of that section (in context of the = document as a whole). And this, I think, illustrates the main reason why the IETF's "show up = on the list" policy _doesn't_ lead to increased input from policymakers: = the key problem here seems to be to be the language barrier. We deal = with mechanisms, policy people with policy, and even then the = vocabularies for the same concepts are often wildly different. We (generally) try very hard in the IETF to define protocols which are = "situation agnostic"; this comes from the fact that separation of = mechanism (how you do things) and policy (what exactly it is you want to = do) is good engineering practice, not least because what I want to do = may not be what you want to do, and what we both want to do may change = over time. Experience has shown that when we do embed policy, we create = protocols that are less scalable, less capable, less successful. There are exceptions to the rule, where we have taken more or less = political stands, but we generally do even this for technical reasons: = RFC 1984 rejects baking "lawful intercept" into our protocols not merely = because we found it odious but because experience has shown that = protocols that are designed to be broken in certain situations pretty = much always break in unintended situations as well. RFC 6973 defines a = set of privacy considerations with the implicit assumption that privacy = is a Good Thing, but still treats the problem in technical terms. I don't see that there is much to be gained at all from changing this = set of operating principles. Where there is a need for more public = policy involvement in protocol design, it has to happen at the = intersection of policy and mechanism, but in terms of mechanism, for it = to be a useful input to the IETF. Perhaps it would be useful to have some sort of outreach to describe the = _minutiae_ of the IETF process to a public policy audience, but without = people in that audience who already have a pretty good grounding in the = technical concepts to which these minutiae are applied, I'm afraid we'd = only be swapping one kind of confusion for another. > Or, in other words, experimenting is exactly what we are looking for. = And of course, when experimenting, one has to accept failures. What is = harder to accept is to assume from the start that the experiment would = lead to failure (unless it can be shown that it has already been tried = and failed - I'm not sure that's the case). Since most of the above is (at least to me) relatively obvious, the fact = that we're _not_ seeing a lot of such activity is possibly an indication = that governments aren't seeing the cost-benefit for direct public policy = community participation in the IETF.=20 It's also possible that the interests of governments are sufficiently = represented in the IETF by nongovernmental entities whose interests are = already implicitly and/or explicitly aligned. This doesn't give public = policy interests an explicit voice in the process. But since one very = nice thing about our process is that _every_ stage of work is = transparent, one would assume that red flags would get thrown up if = anything truly odious from a policy perspective was in danger of making = it all the way through. Cheers, Brian --Apple-Mail=_9A8A79BE-1B3D-41B1-ACA8-A6E3D95E3315 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTDfFKAAoJENt3nsOmbNJcRRgH/1MK514UmQ6/PNrp7mPmckog x96X1GfCZPi6JlbKjN23vcpeMuplJPX8exwhWe9BA4bPtfXqR32MN0BdhQpv4Txt //632t6E9EwgIHjp24BIt7KISP1yeZfuOijvO69q1dVdNjrq+OLX8/zWBwVZQGHe odZY0v9VUpu9m7/7lzbWzc2srUNAgY7NFryU1KaQpZILW2lwm5whqkcrjT9N777v sZkG3o4I6YJjNEpbRGrrqOKQ9SRN0WK3LhdtnintLpSlLZVWn1zfEmzGT+qINcLZ dIJtJiiLKGtG9L33CUB7M4p2wU9YtzfiQFIADJYazGOvH2T5m9shqMM8OwWhzEw= =XihD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_9A8A79BE-1B3D-41B1-ACA8-A6E3D95E3315-- From nobody Wed Feb 26 06:13:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762E61A009E for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:13:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yz54fjGFjbuM for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:13:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.riw.us (server.riw.us [162.144.32.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8D71A0321 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:13:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-098-122-144-218.nc.res.rr.com ([98.122.144.218]:51523 helo=RussPC) by server.riw.us with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:AES128-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WIfEG-0007GG-Ir; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:12:56 +0000 From: "Russ White" To: "'Brian Trammell'" , "'Andrea Glorioso'" References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> <6.2.5.6.2.20140225114956.0db9bf88@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:12:56 -0500 Message-ID: <02c101cf32fc$d92287e0$8b6797a0$@riw.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJMFih2b/pqIL5HvUFCBvP9zfnmIAHwS+XUAcF8GWsC7qp9sgH+vKWhAszX6ToCRYMQCgN5j4kmAhEOGroCAPUEawCT+vThAbzUCscA55+McQIrSgWqAmzX6UqY5V+6UA== Content-Language: en-us X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.riw.us X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - riw.us X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.riw.us: authenticated_id: russw@riw.us X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/xpoI48ji6VK_k0vuqWd1V_iA9Hw Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, 'S Moonesamy' Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Involvement from other constituencies (was: US Government response to the European Commission statement) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:13:10 -0000 > And this, I think, illustrates the main reason why the IETF's "show up on the > list" policy _doesn't_ lead to increased input from policymakers: the key > problem here seems to be to be the language barrier. We deal with > mechanisms, policy people with policy, and even then the vocabularies for > the same concepts are often wildly different. > > We (generally) try very hard in the IETF to define protocols which are > "situation agnostic"; this comes from the fact that separation of mechanism > (how you do things) and policy (what exactly it is you want to do) is good > engineering practice, not least because what I want to do may not be what > you want to do, and what we both want to do may change over time. > Experience has shown that when we do embed policy, we create protocols > that are less scalable, less capable, less successful. +1 Thanks for saying this, Brian -- you expressed it perfectly. :-) Russ From nobody Wed Feb 26 08:45:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495C61A0680 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:45:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GIqD3WDTtNKi for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:45:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89B91A0231 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:44:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id to1so902296ieb.2 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:44:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7PlN/4ILfz17NmJYVMGK30SB4T8ydhOXpLHL6POS4wA=; b=yyWd5fqt6ic2BI/WjfEQrZRTC+JDBOhNxZtFm3P8nPiCSSB+DMqqz1BKq4wuqG6uZ8 CALFifbLWcJzpfXp2QwUGgHzhKQgsDBYazlnW7utwQzXWAUcoXxBSBtifW2egeDEVEXD WqFGMwU/kVhtcbhP4a3hL9eYgDK7SzYEfp6f3EvT3p4kRiAZSe3nHa1uKgUCdPV7IhBi G8vuO48Cwu9zKG4ofZy4tWVk8KvgVNyeLrD8gJe/1r03sZhrDqHwAkSXTUmc0kE7E9Kd Cer8X0QQPsHwi8qPP1a74HAroNotMAbZCfhaF5C6C/uAa1Z8cqL2XfTPTMfQyYi5vHoc e4jg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.66.236 with SMTP id i12mr28007005igt.18.1393433097580; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:44:57 -0800 (PST) Sender: sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.178.235 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:44:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <018d01cf32f6$eca825a0$c5f870e0$@riw.us> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FD9183.8090101@gmail.com> <01a701cf3248$fac2ac90$f04805b0$@riw.us> <018d01cf32f6$eca825a0$c5f870e0$@riw.us> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:44:57 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: PnI2Li0crMqYFmxdZvd3WGjYE7U Message-ID: From: Andrea Glorioso To: Russ White Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc0ce0cd7b9b04f351ec00 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/CS5URLpkO_dWCruQFomqCiyPdqM Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:45:21 -0000 --047d7bdc0ce0cd7b9b04f351ec00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Russ, I cannot answer right now to the important points you make, but I wanted to immediately react on one thing. On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Russ White wrote: > (again, not as a member of any specific organization, nor as an employee of > any company, nor...) > > > Sure. But let me first of all observe that making the logical leap from > the > > notion of "sustainability" to that of "control", and on top of that > reading in my > > two paragraphs (which I quote for completeness below - note the final > > sentence of the second paragraph please) any wish for governmental > control > > over their populations, is in my opinion quite surprising. > > I was asking you what you mean, rather than making a statement. > > > It almost looks like > > you have some rather strong and well-formed prejudices towards public > > authorities. > > Nice ad hominem attack. As it turns out, my worldview/philosophy is > probably > orthogonal to yours, but let's leave that aside for the moment (as much as > possible, anyway). > I absolutely did not want to make an 'ad hominem' attack. To be honest I do not find my words can qualify as such, but I know that on the IETF-discuss mailing list there is already a debate on the semantics on the term so I will not repeat it here :) The important thing anyway is that you interpreted it as such. I want to apologise to you for this; that was not my intention. I very much value the conversation we are having and, even though we might not agree on everything, it is nonetheless a very enriching exchange. I will reply to your other points as soon as possible. Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro --047d7bdc0ce0cd7b9b04f351ec00 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Russ,

I cannot answer right now to the important points you m= ake, but I wanted
to immediately react on one thing.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Russ White = <rus= sw@riw.us> wrote:
(again, not as a member of any specific organization, nor as an employee of=
any company, nor...)

> Sure. But let me first of all observe that making the logical leap fro= m
the
> notion of "sustainability" to that of "control", a= nd on top of that
reading in my
> two paragraphs (which I quote for completeness below - note the final<= br> > sentence of the second paragraph please) any wish for governmental con= trol
> over their populations, is in my opinion quite surprising.

I was asking you what you mean, rather than making a statement.

> It almost looks like
> you have some rather strong and well-formed prejudices towards public<= br> > authorities.

Nice ad hominem attack. As it turns out, my worldview/philosophy is p= robably
orthogonal to yours, but let's leave that aside for the moment (as much= as
possible, anyway).

I absolutely did not want to make an 'ad hominem' = attack. To be honest I
do not find my w= ords can qualify as such, but I know that on the IETF-discuss
mailing list there is already a debate on the semantics on the term so I
will not repeat it here :)

The imp= ortant thing anyway is that you interpreted it as such. I want to apologise= to
you for this; that was not my intention. I very much value the conversation= we are
having and, even though we might not agree on everything, it is= nonetheless a very
enriching exchange.

I will reply to your oth= er points as soon as possible.

Best,

Andrea

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I d= o not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso<= br>Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D= 1749288&trk=3Dtab_pro
--047d7bdc0ce0cd7b9b04f351ec00-- From nobody Wed Feb 26 14:59:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD011A07D3 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:59:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dYQKfRVuYEGc for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.riw.us (server.riw.us [162.144.32.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC521A07F8 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:59:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-098-122-144-218.nc.res.rr.com ([98.122.144.218]:55736 helo=RussPC) by server.riw.us with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:AES128-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1WInRR-0002ZK-D7; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:59:05 +0000 From: "Russ White" To: "'Andrea Glorioso'" References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FD9183.8090101@gmail.com> <01a701cf3248$fac2ac90$f04805b0$@riw.us> <018d01cf32f6$eca825a0$c5f870e0$@riw.us> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:59:04 -0500 Message-ID: <017201cf3346$595936e0$0c0ba4a0$@riw.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJMFih2b/pqIL5HvUFCBvP9zfnmIAHwS+XUAcF8GWsC7qp9sgH+vKWhAszX6ToCRYMQCgJb3hQGAdISwhECnP4jHwI/k6oSAc9P27sBuA+1HwIH1RQWAgsQWh+Y262NMA== Content-Language: en-us X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.riw.us X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iab.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - riw.us X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.riw.us: authenticated_id: russw@riw.us X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/ilub2kMUcxbwX2UyQ87IfopXhFw Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:59:18 -0000 > I absolutely did not want to make an 'ad hominem' attack. To be honest I > do not find my words can qualify as such, but I know that on the IETF-discuss > mailing list there is already a debate on the semantics on the term so I > will not repeat it here :) I didn't take offense! :-) > I will reply to your other points as soon as possible. Okay, thanks... No rush. :-) Russ From nobody Fri Feb 28 04:01:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A98231A022F for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:01:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.465 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MqA53TS5Jw4C for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:01:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7A9D1A0202 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.204]) by atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1SC1NH0002295 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 07:01:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 7323 invoked by uid 0); 28 Feb 2014 12:01:23 -0000 X-TCPREMOTEIP: 23.19.138.92 X-Authenticated-UID: avri@ella.com Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (avri@ella.com@23.19.138.92) by 0 with ESMTPA; 28 Feb 2014 12:01:23 -0000 Message-ID: <53107A90.9090704@acm.org> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:01:20 +0100 From: Avri Doria User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internetgovtech@iab.org References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> <6.2.5.6.2.20140225114956.0db9bf88@resistor.net> <02c101cf32fc$d92287e0$8b6797a0$@riw.us> In-Reply-To: <02c101cf32fc$d92287e0$8b6797a0$@riw.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140228-0, 02/28/2014), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/E9ysRFED4JxI9vL3rrKwT9Jli-c Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Involvement from other constituencies X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:01:28 -0000 Hi, One of my problems with this attempt to strictly separate Mechanisms from Policy only seems to work in some theories, but rarely in practice. We may think we are being strict, on either the engineering or policy side of the coin, but deeper analysis rarely bears that up as most mechanisms have policy implication, and most policies interfere with engineering mechanisms at some point. avri On 26-Feb-14 15:12, Russ White wrote: > >> And this, I think, illustrates the main reason why the IETF's "show up on > the >> list" policy _doesn't_ lead to increased input from policymakers: the key >> problem here seems to be to be the language barrier. We deal with >> mechanisms, policy people with policy, and even then the vocabularies for >> the same concepts are often wildly different. >> >> We (generally) try very hard in the IETF to define protocols which are >> "situation agnostic"; this comes from the fact that separation of > mechanism >> (how you do things) and policy (what exactly it is you want to do) is good >> engineering practice, not least because what I want to do may not be what >> you want to do, and what we both want to do may change over time. >> Experience has shown that when we do embed policy, we create protocols >> that are less scalable, less capable, less successful. > > +1 > > Thanks for saying this, Brian -- you expressed it perfectly. > > :-) > > Russ > > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech > > From nobody Fri Feb 28 20:53:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F46D1A037F for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:53:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rwDYo2t1q2Ns for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:53:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cis-india.org (mail.cis-india.org [202.190.125.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765E11A034B for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:53:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.30.1.41] (unknown [162.243.72.125]) by mail.cis-india.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 932F3A7D6E6; Sat, 1 Mar 2014 04:53:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <531167C5.7010904@cis-india.org> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 05:53:25 +0100 From: Pranesh Prakash Organization: Centre for Internet and Society User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eliot Lear , Andrea Glorioso References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <52FCF193.1050308@cisco.com> <52FD2A19.9040006@cisco.com> <530C7425.5020306@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <530C7425.5020306@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="N7m2lm5HQRSbrCQfwpkdAXqV56tJIGtC1" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/AT9RavQ9qArwH2AaT2eh-an3Mbk Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 04:53:41 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --N7m2lm5HQRSbrCQfwpkdAXqV56tJIGtC1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Eliot Lear [2014-02-25 11:44:53]: > Suppose governments A, B, and C are trying to agree a standard. > Governments C wants an unrelated agreement out of B. B says to C, "vot= e > with me on the standard, and I'll sign." The result had nothing to do > with the quality of the standard, and everything to do with the > importance of the agreement to C. Government A is wondering what > happened because she wasn't party to the other agreement. Lack of > transparency and a lack of quality are the result. Simply put, A > suffered from a quid pro quo between B and C. This can occur between > standards within an organization or even across whole sectors. I have > seen both forms in this industry. Depending on the rules of the meetin= g > this sort of behavior is more or less difficult to detect. This kind of vote-rigging isn't unique only to states. It happens quite frequently when businesses want to get international=20 standard-setting organizations' approval for their formats as standards. Something akin to a quid-pro-quo of this sort also happens when=20 companies A & B collude to keep out a competitor C's technology from=20 being included within a standard (whether for reasons of a patent, a=20 business deal between A & B, the possibility that C's technology might=20 pose problems for government X, or whatever other reason), despite the=20 competitor's technology actually being superior. So when you say: > On the other hand, in a > government context there is the possibility of linkage to issues where > the "good" is quite opaque, and quite frankly I have seen this linkage > in action, and it is not pretty. I actually don't see what that's restricted to the government context. --=20 Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org ------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash --N7m2lm5HQRSbrCQfwpkdAXqV56tJIGtC1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTEWfFAAoJEFUPonS5l6CpCU8P/2x65NBUNHXX3XjbRn2u6MSn DqREs4tp+SpFx/3kMK8V+pY81gWpSJjMar9bCZR0KeAMk4gZ4f0W0etKh4Qyp0R6 DPo4P0szgrPG8hkRAVLiYDH97pt16U+AqSiMjLdVgdmVNuKaAuAsHOnxhlAwEPHA zeir5sbyus8iOWcOP9eIYNZm1lhlHSjLFhFNoE/nJgZVf49//YTsOdVUMXDlRgY+ qves3fx5LxC53tuZd8fdMG7K8C/X6oDKVSOT6e+ejwFKomwIOXykoiBNMrarULoK FjiWVrqVZoMXQmpZh5s13a/3/mB6/bv2Vj8nomFoLi6VpDZKQI67LOv4dDrBANab OkeRBuPnzmL2Bt6RHcFoom2z1Tf5Fd4UHmP5ESGp7rIvixOB1RXgo/0ufXTluWck V/1nY7XCpyhlvscCUxsieYOcr1IfWbMN+M+3dY5q7ujM9E192JeVUIKB4rMHWmWF MrAMASdvqHVtWyhp5gkpSUiPpPQjsjL2gWfz9/Kzj2WQJ9Hfq4jKBKExmYuOTF5j wntNN0z2jw6tSr289wiiEVut9jA0PfMNtO6MVZj69QE3uWCHLghzwe9uK1w0wWF4 hvU6gCxNcwReEhoBy70UkdzYEHiRMAKQw2NAL1pFsUxF9QETmW3t0I3MWKAWiTvB LlV1wRoLubiwLVWDy1lc =Myhv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --N7m2lm5HQRSbrCQfwpkdAXqV56tJIGtC1-- From nobody Fri Feb 28 21:26:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0331A0396 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:26:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.192 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.192 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hlkEy-vV3fWz for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:26:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.cis-india.org (mail.cis-india.org [202.190.125.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85981A037F for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 21:26:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.30.1.41] (unknown [162.243.72.125]) by mail.cis-india.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3850EA7CA87; Sat, 1 Mar 2014 05:26:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53116F75.1050208@cis-india.org> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 06:26:13 +0100 From: Pranesh Prakash Organization: Centre for Internet and Society User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ White , 'Brian Trammell' , 'Andrea Glorioso' References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> <6.2.5.6.2.20140225114956.0db9bf88@resistor.net> <02c101cf32fc$d92287e0$8b6797a0$@riw.us> In-Reply-To: <02c101cf32fc$d92287e0$8b6797a0$@riw.us> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="p2MgtmNpSshhSjKGrNFliMH399tKQNHUd" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/fKwGp3jc4jF8ilEDKiEaefQzmAM Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, 'S Moonesamy' Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Involvement from other constituencies X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 05:26:26 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --p2MgtmNpSshhSjKGrNFliMH399tKQNHUd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Russ White [2014-02-26 15:12:56]: > >> And this, I think, illustrates the main reason why the IETF's "show up= on > the >> list" policy _doesn't_ lead to increased input from policymakers: the = key >> problem here seems to be to be the language barrier. We deal with >> mechanisms, policy people with policy, and even then the vocabularies = for >> the same concepts are often wildly different. >> >> We (generally) try very hard in the IETF to define protocols which are= >> "situation agnostic"; this comes from the fact that separation of > mechanism >> (how you do things) and policy (what exactly it is you want to do) is = good >> engineering practice, not least because what I want to do may not be w= hat >> you want to do, and what we both want to do may change over time. >> Experience has shown that when we do embed policy, we create protocols= >> that are less scalable, less capable, less successful. > > +1 > > Thanks for saying this, Brian -- you expressed it perfectly. I couldn't disagree more strongly with this :) Protocol decisions whether it is the trust system which underlies BGP,=20 the CA system, or the attempting to make all public XMPP servers use s2s = and c2s encryption by default, or many other kinds of decisions, are=20 inherently deeply political. The decision to require all SMTP servers to only prepend to the=20 "received" header, has political ramifications. The attempt by so many=20 people to "fix" what they see as the broken system of e-mail (since=20 until further changes are made[1] there is neither metadata integrity=20 (for the most part, discounting that which DKIM covers) nor is there any = possibility of concealing metadata) is also deeply political. The question of whether to allow for patent-encumbered standards is a=20 deeply political question.[2][3][4] It is, imho, futile to pretend that engineers don't make political=20 decisions all the time. [1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cailleux-secure-headers-04 [2]: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt [3]: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-comments-on-vp8-patent.ht= ml [4]: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg02436.html --=20 Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org ------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash --p2MgtmNpSshhSjKGrNFliMH399tKQNHUd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTEW91AAoJEFUPonS5l6CpVCUP/izvFzo75WTHJ0b5WAO9u9+3 6+nGqdt44JHqUkgeD8XTx97koNisXOcJztlUEsKi7PP6z+jQqG+z1XIlaXKFIPos Dr2IzjhqRdmI5bQZTZbrt98ehDUar2hTwTSDkptjQ1kBrRfpZFqmkg5YCKNQUEzU PCi6EH8bTvGLvl921tHBj/7PUPL8XKMLzHr4nf7EDbD5g0Ly06b05TzwuGgO4BXN d35A0nKPa5wyWDEYf91HTGQ4+gwqGuFBZKqFPIZvLDawWo5KcuTZRCa4lFhTvVXr fFtpnnU2V30wwete+xelnchefsbThT0XtFcBh89hL9FJwM/n4pmUXnZ7kRHk2Rhj Xra2A/quUxEWtzyA9WdJqdwRK0r5gQZ0NRrCMqcpW3Ktpcvk9nm/MTRuN4W2Yu+J quognZqh2DqMMMTOz1EgTTtTYzCaxE5gUtlChaKl4WBgZ3dNLXTG/DNXOhV0RfFP xSy3fl6KUeTXJMBxkhC9/b43K79/0Db0mWHI4NMlUHeizJ11i2P2eo8bXQKI13qF FQBgdAuU4toGD3NzJZ3uiDqF8KEnjVUx5C2dmFL8KryHwm/SOM24+mH/NtV+r9CZ YRNuTHz0FtcC+0DPjMT6G5wSjNOWdvWfFRN1ly0uqRerctJuiD8b1bcjBN78aun2 nK0/qAkgeHTcDB6HclmU =4/iD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --p2MgtmNpSshhSjKGrNFliMH399tKQNHUd-- From nobody Fri Feb 28 22:41:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A98A1A040A for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:41:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.337 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dk7ts8-hu1G5 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A161A02CE for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:41:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.129.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s216el6N002167 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:40:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1393656064; bh=mYsrSkGjrQWM/JJCG07R20TeMfi787ENm8poA49Cp6w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=psJVWs0hYAJSI+iyH9Tp9mR00a11C/gsugvARHn6m+IdCGD2PGutgis4ldn2sMqo5 9Oge0fEysw9LXV56SkzGCZlZJWaFbDeWB1ILD0J/jMc70LYNCp0UJT90k6+1kz+IWD TCzqn86ygM+6j3Oh/9tn6rRK5p2CFQYlHZyCvasc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1393656064; i=@elandsys.com; bh=mYsrSkGjrQWM/JJCG07R20TeMfi787ENm8poA49Cp6w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=tHR0fLAwKnJPnQTIcx+8FNgoKVMtXf3MCjVeZYakCu6YkJvqWFnUISZ1mQ6KQbPZp wjJxqBjF+1MZb7JgvpxuWZ5/c9qCtEpn4QsXb1ar96niFjJzZJgWlnmAkaqO0cNj93 DNcIYSFlpJ3L+lRs9FzhyhNR/aN2RoKr6wOIJTkQ= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140228213401.0c15cb00@elandnews.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:34:45 -0800 To: Pranesh Prakash , Russ White , Brian Trammell , Andrea Glorioso From: S Moonesamy In-Reply-To: <53116F75.1050208@cis-india.org> References: <8E82AC16-6428-412E-A862-6F53AFE632C7@isoc.org> <074FE4AC-76B0-45C2-B849-3BFE5D4782DD@vigilsec.com> <73481820-F228-434C-814A-070F6A2C1F93@gmail.com> <83E315B6-2059-490A-A892-19CF6D74EA62@vigilsec.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D0101E71E6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01c601cf324b$d0fd9750$72f8c5f0$@riw.us> <6.2.5.6.2.20140225114956.0db9bf88@resistor.net> <02c101cf32fc$d92287e0$8b6797a0$@riw.us> <53116F75.1050208@cis-india.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/MrNGFR2biyYVZXQXwsDN97Sap3A Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Involvement from other constituencies X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 06:41:30 -0000 Hi Pranesh, At 21:26 28-02-2014, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >I couldn't disagree more strongly with this :) > >Protocol decisions whether it is the trust system which underlies >BGP, the CA system, or the attempting to make all public XMPP >servers use s2s and c2s encryption by default, or many other kinds >of decisions, are inherently deeply political. > >The decision to require all SMTP servers to only prepend to the >"received" header, has political ramifications. The attempt by so >many people to "fix" what they see as the broken system of e-mail >(since until further changes are made[1] there is neither metadata >integrity (for the most part, discounting that which DKIM covers) >nor is there any possibility of concealing metadata) is also deeply political. > >The question of whether to allow for patent-encumbered standards is >a deeply political question.[2][3][4] > >It is, imho, futile to pretend that engineers don't make political >decisions all the time. A technical specification can have a political ramifications. There are also privacy considerations. I am not sure at the moment whether to list that under political ramifications or not. I made the following argument some time ago [1]: "When a person sends an email the person consents to the transmission of an email address. The email address is necessary for the recipient of the email to be able to reply to it." I cannot think of another way for the technology to work if, for example, I do not include an email address for you to send me a reply. As I have not reviewed the S/MIME draft I prefer not to comment about it. There can be political ramifications to BGPSEC, the CA system, and maybe even email. It would require a lot of people to identify the political ramifications [2]. Let's say that some entity is created for all that. The open source people might have a higher barrier to overcome [3]. A well-written technical standard would have minimized political ramifications to an extent that it is not worth bothering about. There is still the intellectual property question. Open source people usually do not like technical standards which are covered by patents. Regards, S. Moonesamy 1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-privacy-identifiers-01 2. There are a lot of technical specifications and different organizations involved. 3. There is already a high barrier as it is to stay involved.