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

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Sun, 29 December 2019 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 18D09120033 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 03:18:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=frobbit.se
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 CGO-EywUSBE2 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 03:18:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 793F712001E for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 03:18:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.165.72.241] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc:0:61ce:2bc8:31cc:8fd]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95C4826B22; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 12:18:20 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=frobbit.se; s=mail; t=1577618300; bh=HbXMFKb7T71DS6r9Wi+r9TUgv+aV6aQWpQJcbZGfE5k=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=De9XH4lJdJ5skpTuB0/8++teaHircqhT0rvodfarL5bjxcjHgXaNpMV00dNAPUVhC o7TumwxSCNcW9aV1nb2m60XfS/VaS3Evpcyc7HXeVRlU/U38a1h1/OKk4zzQ3vDnkD PIBVBWS3e6BGQohAF4lNNJblV2QUK2X7dFELeL3w=
From: "Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" <paf@frobbit.se>
To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Cc: "Andrew Campling" <andrew.campling@419.consulting>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 12:18:19 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <C49A4535-FAAC-4E9B-9468-F2B9488D8CBF@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <20191229093910.GA20055@sources.org>
References: <f13e1588-35e0-2493-93d2-add3480bb207@cs.tcd.ie> <1127343564.5806.1577112317584@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <ebcca2be-6839-8f43-d74f-0e863e32cd2d@cs.tcd.ie> <2068147434.6516.1577178675917@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <20191227102943.GA14015@nic.fr> <646cd584-60d1-a578-36e9-d4eca5d9ec93@gmail.com> <LO2P265MB0573D63DA3AB1BC61CB53693C2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <20191229093910.GA20055@sources.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_9EAF3B49-CE0C-4A59-BD73-48AF323CED05_="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/OiSgXgB_ESc_wIt6tCrlRLEg5fM>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
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: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:18:25 -0000

On 29 Dec 2019, at 10:39, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 06:32:54PM +0000,
>  Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting> wrote
>  a message of 229 lines which said:
>
>> The lack of an effective, global policy making body for the internet
>> is a problem that needs to be addressed as it is a significant gap.
>
> This statement is questionable. As noted by Randy Bush and Brian Carpenter, such a body would have an extraordinary power (in the past, even the worst dictator had a power limited to the borders of the country), and then we would have to think about how to limit and control that power.

And more importantly, IF there is a governance body, there must by definition be something that is to be governed.

I have hard time understanding what that could be.

Coordination is something completely different, and we should aim towards continuing the effective coordination we have done so far.

   Patrik