Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-for-the-users-02> (The Internet is for End Users)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,

On 07-Feb-20 22:01, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
>> On 7 Feb 2020, at 02:13, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> I think the second sentence is a highly debatable assertion. Apart from
>> anything else, I thought it was the ISOC's job, in the accepted division
>> of labour according to BCP11.: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2028#section-3.4
>> But equally important, I think we have good reason to believe that the
>> people who typically participate in the IETF are not the right sort of
>> people to engage usefully in dialogue about "political, social and economic
>> concerns". I think we will only burn our fingers.
> 
> While that may be true, the IETF cannot just stuff this stuff off to the ISOC.  If work being taken on has societal consequences, the IETF should be aware of them, and better to have the impacted people represent their concerns themselves through direct participation in IETF processes, rather than ISOC attempting to proxy for them.

The IETF being open to all, yes, of course direct participation is available and welcome. But that doesn't mean that the IETF can itself engage with civil society, lobbying groups, special interest groups, governments, and whatever, which the draft seems to suggest:

> 4.1.  Engaging the Internet Community
...
>    Therefore, we have not only a responsibility to analyse and consider
>    the impacts of the IETF's work, but also a responsibility to consult
>    with that greater Internet community. 

That ("consult with that greater Internet community") seems infeasible.

>    We should enter into a
>    dialogue about not only the technical concerns that are well-
>    represented in the IETF but also the political, social and economic
>    concerns that it engenders, and that are better represented
>    elsewhere.

That is very obscurely phrased. Does it mean that in addition to our existing channel of communication with ISOC, we should have channels of communication with other organisations? If so, which ones, and who is the arbiter when they disagree? When the EFF says one thing, and the IAB (I mean iab.com) says another thing, who do we listen to?

I just don't find this section of the draft realistic at all.

Note, I am not saying that the "political, social and economic concerns" don't matter. They do matter. I'm just not seeing the mechanism for taking them into account.

Regards
    Brian