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

[Andrew Campling <[e-mail]>]

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.


Andrew