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

["Marc Blanchet" <[e-mail]>]

On 28 Dec 2019, at 14:31, Andrew Campling wrote:

> On Dec 28, 2019, at 19:06, Tony Li <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Policy is just another means for some small group of people to tell 
>> other people what
>> to do. We reject that at its very basis. We do not want policy. We 
>> want cooperation.
>
>> The Internet works because we propose things and reach rough 
>> consensus on them. Those
>> who feel that it’s a Good Idea try it out. It gets tweaked. Others 
>> feel that it’s a Good Idea
>> and join in. Or not. Only when enough people participate does it 
>> become effective.
>
>> We do not need people to try to set policy. They are not welcome. If 
>> a group is constituted
>> to form policy, we will not follow it.
>
>> We do need Good Ideas. Folks who have them are welcome to propose 
>> them.
>
>
> That is ironically a policy of sorts, one which may or may not be 
> shared by others, and which may or may not be represent a rough 
> consensus view of those participating in the IETF.  I note however 
> that, for example, the number of people participating directly in the 
> IGF is significantly larger than that participating in the IETF and 
> that the former group is significantly more diverse in nature.  On 
> that basis, you could, to rephrase your words, argue that technical 
> decisions taken by the IETF are just another means for a small, 
> un-diverse group of people to tell other people what to do.  You may 
> find that those other groups are just as adamant in “rejecting that 
> at its very basis”, and that they have an equally strong expectation 
> of cooperation.
>
> Whilst it may be uncomfortable for some participants, some actions 
> taken by the IETF (and other groups like ICANN) do in fact have policy 
> implications for others.  I believe that it is foolish to ignore this 
> and pretend that the IETF can operate in a libertarian bubble, somehow 
> insulated both from the results of its own actions and from the views 
> of others.


IMHO, we are diverging pretty off the initial proposed charter. Well I 
can understand your point of view, I think the policy side, as you 
describe, should be outside the scope of the charter.

Can we come back to technical content?

Marc.

>
>
> Andrew


> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss