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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 07 February 2020 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9A112011C for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:34:59 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 WgXgcZkMcg0c for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A8841200FE for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id r67so1335849pjb.0 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 11:34:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iICLVw5GVrH353cMKlM8gxneF6JOE6pNZZ+W8M8n1c8=; b=mvKZGEfkadH2xOHCMxs0heslsXDgZ/upnrSubiXKJMGFRQriQ8US0X3ajAklYirCvr yddF/wVY+0cyJx75IukGFhDHqVeuSddUE9kKeUYGZpV5gF11BTRAznJOq8QyM0ndhd9g 781l6OlqJT9hBTcxfMPUGIOeh0ntHGdepWdWsMK8DCqPln5mMBHFK/qTI1g5x18V7IEq Xt5faZLlfvNyalazqj5JvxzkWLaugP4VRHNHQQrSJPgQl5U/JtAsuMMI4MA4i3qAAgTA YddfbFIGsINaGve9TRccDpN+Ts+b92rqrDQ1u0GGPeFGkk31aYBTyNkZVVi0pHYvcqji DWNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=iICLVw5GVrH353cMKlM8gxneF6JOE6pNZZ+W8M8n1c8=; b=SO5EWHIZGkBtJnculMy8iXSyAPQ7vlwUex7AbgRbf1jRbib9xcBs4zYVATfnpYpyP/ V2C683foW0AQX8rQKMjlJ7mIU3J8FSB9zOoJ23rI+Cgios/B7AflKTVcG69aMGQ/rARP Bv7uh5/OM5e5S3TGjrZBxaCl8vSkH/S0Q7RRcShCU5rLuLCRwmJrWOwIq06ShNNRNaDi 0qfJla1K/JB0ccaT5ECvrMUFIKqYOTUJWGuzdViIYRUjhW1LpURk/ibDxGz8IdHgkad3 fEyoohB1usAP2w4ksVhhniQfpKzTuAYeRDP5r8JoIAkdekfHjry6pA3DY5gn4LJvDKhy WK5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVGB536LQn9WwL2xXpspCUrz6nAicZOQLNTKh7OQJD1CdV0f2uJ E/o4DpXNoZM/EMeamXwLSsEZ63r5
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwiwFS2CGcwznGaGw/s/AhbcpJBjPUWrsI432BYgtSge5uKrJf+UeYc1pIgTGVtJx7QLC0H/g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:cb11:: with SMTP id z17mr5641733pjt.122.1581104097828; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 11:34:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (88.161.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.161.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b3sm3487539pjo.30.2020.02.07.11.34.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Feb 2020 11:34:57 -0800 (PST)
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org, iab@iab.org
References: <158094293707.31222.730373457433066701.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1c0861ff-cd59-1c43-6aa9-76e369128115@gmail.com> <597042151.11351.1581070907998@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f92e1bf7-edcd-8b0f-ea37-563791470f38@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 08:34:54 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <597042151.11351.1581070907998@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/Cx2sI-x7aPBNH-HSB0-VoX8rFlw>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-for-the-users-02> (The Internet is for End Users)
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 19:35:00 -0000

Hi Vittorio,
On 07-Feb-20 23:21, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> 
>> Il 07/02/2020 02:13 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>
>>>    While some civil society organisations specialise in technology and
>>>    Internet policy, they typically do not have the capacity to
>>>    participate broadly, nor are they necessarily representative of the
>>>    larger Internet community.
>>
>> Indeed. Except for ISOC.
>>
>> I find this whole section "4.1.  Engaging the Internet Community" off track.
>> Instead, I believe it should recommend improved IETF engagement *with ISOC*,
>> with the objective of helping ISOC do this part of its job even better,
>> and giving the IETF substantive feedback as a result.
> 
> While parsing your comment, it occurred to me that perhaps we are thinking at two different definitions of "the Internet Community" (as used, but not defined, in the document). I understood "the Internet community" to include any individual that uses the Internet, i.e. several billion people. But perhaps you are thinking only of the technical community?

Well, as Christian Huitema pointed out in a different context (RFC Editor discussion), the notion of the technical community has very fuzzy boundaries. However, I was indeed thinking of the wider community, not the technical community. Holding a dialogue with the wider community is immensely difficult, and we've known that for 25 years. I'll come back to that in a moment when I reply to Eliot.
 
> Otherwise, even in specialised Internet policy venues such as the IGF, you will find very few non-technical individuals and organizations that feel represented by ISOC. It is usually considered as an organization strictly for the Internet industry, an old engineers club focused on the promotion of those specific views and interests. In a way, the IETF speaking with ISOC would be perceived like the IETF speaking with itself.

I think that's a profound misunderstanding of ISOC, but it illustrates *exactly* why the IETF would do an even worse job of talking to 8 billion people than ISOC does. I have no concept at all of what the IETF could do to even attempt such a dialogue. If after 28 years the ISOC hasn't found out how to do it, we certainly can't.
 
> (Actually, thinking at it, the outrage sparked among many NGOs by ISOC's actions on dot org is good evidence that the two sets of interests are at odds.)

The big problem is the profound differences of understanding. I won't say more since that would send us wildly off topic.

Regards
    Brian