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

Stephane Bortzmeyer <> Sun, 29 December 2019 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8345012004E for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 01:43:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aobs0qA1LwLM for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 01:43:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CBB912002F for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 01:43:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10) id D2B3BA029B; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:43:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B0297C98F2; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:39:10 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:39:10 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
To: Andrew Campling <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <LO2P265MB0573D63DA3AB1BC61CB53693C2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <LO2P265MB0573D63DA3AB1BC61CB53693C2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.2
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:43:11 -0000

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 06:32:54PM +0000,
 Andrew Campling <> 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.

> I agree with Vittorio’s points above, believe that the IETF and
> other bodies ignore this at their peril.

I don't think that IETF ignore there are political consequences to our
choices (see RFC 8280). 

> The IETF is many things, it is not however especially diverse by
> most accepted definitions of the term.

I don't know if there is a generally accepted definition. Some people
see diversity as a matter of skin color, some as a matter of
political opinions, or social class. Seeing political discussions
inside IETF (for instance about DoH…), it seems there are many very
different opinions.

> I note that there is a large body of evidence that shows that
> organisations of all types perform better when they embrace
> diversity, and conversely that organisations that do not are doomed
> to underperformance.

As they say on Wikipedia, "references needed". Anyway, things like the
place of women are not a matter of efficiency but of justice. I don't
care if organisations with more women are "more efficient" (for some
organisations like the NSA, I wish there were less efficient…),
because discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, etc, is wrong, period. It does not matter if it is
efficient or not.

> I welcome It may indeed be harder (but by no means impossible) to
> reach consensus

It all depends on the layer (as in the layer model). At a high-level,
we have a consensus, for instance in the universal declaration of
human rights. At a lower level, when it comes to more concrete rules,
I don't think we can have a consensus between a all humans on

> This lack of a clearly articulated (and tested) policy position on
> which to build a technical solution is a problem.

We have many RFC about our political choices, RFC 8280 provides a good