Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience

["Patrik Fältström " <[e-mail]>]

On 29 Dec 2019, at 0:44, Scott Brim wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 4:07 PM Patrik Fältström <paf=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> ICANN, ITU and many other processes are different. Very different.
>>
>
> First of all, yes -- and the ITU-T process attracts certain kinds of people and certain kinds of goals, just as the IETF and ICANN do. This -- the character of other organizations -- needs to be taken into account when deciding whether the IETF can cede all policy decisions to others.
>
> Second, historically the wiretap discussions were very significant in that the IETF explicitly made a policy decision in the form of an engineering decision. At least when I was active I believe the IETF considered policy issues all the time, if only implicitly.

Correct Scott, but I was more thinking of the fact ITU-T results might bind the members (the member States) by treaties, which implies the members do not have any choice but implement the outcomes. Just like ICANN outcomes are binding for the contracted parties in many cases.

IETF do not have such arrangements. We implement if we like what IETF produce.

   Patrik