Re: [Gendispatch] Updated draft: Policy experts are IETF stakeholders

[Stacie Hoffmann <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,


Thank you to everyone who has fed back so far.

>From comments, it looks like the scope and shape of the problem is coming
through more clearly than in the 00 draft - a key piece of feedback we took
away from discussions at 116. This included acknowledging that there is a
two-sided obligation from policy and technical experts, and a need to
engage at the right time.

>From comments it is apparent that we can more explicitly convey the need
for policy expertise to be brought in early on in the process, and not left
to final review. We would be interested in others’ views on how to do this
practically. We understand that this would likely be a step change, which
is one reason why we think better liaisons and coordinating would, in the
long run, benefit all.

It is really helpful to see some brainstorming on potential avenues and
ways to start addressing the problem statement. Ideas we have collated
include:

   -

   Buddying with people already immersed in the work
   -

   Liaisons with different bodies
   -

   Earlier notifications and communications of relevant work
   -

   Getting engaged in the review process
   -

   Working with ISOC in the context of the IAB-ISOC relationship as set out
   in RFC 8712


We agree there is ambiguity on where this draft may actually land. We have
had feedback that this doesn’t logically sit in a current working group.
The idea of a tightly scoped working group had mixed feedback. Many people
have suggested that this work may be best suited in another group, such as
under the IAB or EODIR.

Further thoughts/suggestions on next steps are particularly welcome.

Best

Stacie


On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 at 02:25, Christian Huitema <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I could see the point of an external reviewer sending a message to "the
> IETF" explaining that if not fixed, some draft will have a damaging
> impact on some affected parties. In theory, our processes allow for that
> to happen during IETF last call. I could see the "policy experts"
> mentioned in draft-hoffmann-gendispatch-policy-stakeholders subscribing
> to the last call list and doing just that.
>
> But of course, that's easier said than done. Experience shows that
> writing good reviews is hard. Also, communicating at the last moment is
> very likely to antagonize the working group that have been working for a
> couple years on the draft. As Stephen said, nothing beats engaging early
> with the working group.
>
> But then, there is an obvious problem. If we want experts to engage in a
> working group early, they need to understand equally early why the work
> is important and why their expertise will be useful. I am not sure that
> subscribing to IESG announcements and reading working group chapters
> suffices. Maybe there is something to be done there.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
> On 6/13/2023 4:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > I agree with both Joel and Stephen. IMHO there is nothing substantively
> > new in this area, compared with what I experienced as an IAB member
> > 20+ years ago. (There are a few new talking shops.)
> >
> > What is actionable that will help the IETF make the Internet work
> > better? For that matter, what is actionable that will help the
> > IETF make the IETF work better?
> >
> > We could perhaps look at draft-farrell-tenyearsafter as a sort of case
> > study. Would some additional liaisons or committees have improved the
> > outcomes (i.e., produced more or better IETF specifications mitigating
> > the problem of pervasive surveillance)?
> >
> > We do have a formal relationship between the IETF and the policy world
> > in Section 5 of RFC 8712:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8712.html#name-the-ietfs-role-in-isoc
> > so there is a pretty clear division of responsibilities.
> >
> > Regards
> >     Brian Carpenter
> >
> > On 14-Jun-23 11:04, Joel Halpern wrote:
> >> Looking at the draft, I was struck that it goes to some trouble to make
> >> clear that if policy folks are to participate effectively, they need to
> >> also understand the technology.  The point I take away from that is that
> >> the obligation is on both sides, both the policy-oriented participant
> >> and the community, to help make that education happen.
> >>
> >> Having said taht, I have trouble figuring out what to do with the
> >> draft.  Not clear how or where it can usefully progress, for all that I
> >> found it interesting and informative in pulling together disparate
> >> aspects.
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >>
> >> Joel
> >>
> >> On 6/13/2023 6:46 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hiya,
> >>>
> >>> I just read the draft and recalling the discussion at
> >>> IETF-116 I fear that a message that I heard being sent from
> >>> the mic line perhaps hasn't landed.
> >>>
> >>> In particular, I think a number of people said that the best
> >>> way to ensure your favourite policy topics are considered in
> >>> IETF work is to have someone who is playing a full and
> >>> constructive part in that IETF work be familiar with your
> >>> favourite policy issues. Liaising, co-ordinating and setting
> >>> up new bodies will be nowhere near as effective.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's expensive (in time), but so is being involved in
> >>> IETF work, so that seems fair to me fwiw.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> S.
> >>>
> >>> On 13/06/2023 16:31, Stacie Hoffmann wrote:
> >>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> Many thanks to those of you who provided feedback to us on the Policy
> >>>> Experts are IETF Stakeholders draft at the 116 Gen Dispatch meeting.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have uploaded a new version (see below), which we are preparing
> >>>> for the
> >>>> 117 meeting and welcome further input or ideas on how to refine our
> >>>> problem
> >>>> statement or scope potential solutions. In particular, we would
> welcome
> >>>> specific examples of how and where policy input is working well, and
> >>>> thoughts on a ‘landing space’ or next steps for this work.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please reach out to the authors directly with comments or suggestions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, if anyone is interested in reviewing or contributing to this
> >>>> document
> >>>> please let us know. It would be great to work with others on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Stacie
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> >>>> From: <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 at 10:42
> >>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
> >>>> draft-hoffmann-gendispatch-policy-stakeholders-01.txt
> >>>> To: Marek Blachut <[e-mail]>, Stacie Hoffmann <
> >>>> [e-mail]>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A new version of I-D,
> >>>> draft-hoffmann-gendispatch-policy-stakeholders-01.txt
> >>>> has been successfully submitted by Marek Blachut and posted to the
> >>>> IETF repository.
> >>>>
> >>>> Name:           draft-hoffmann-gendispatch-policy-stakeholders
> >>>> Revision:       01
> >>>> Title:          Policy experts are IETF stakeholders
> >>>> Document date:  2023-06-13
> >>>> Group:          Individual Submission
> >>>> Pages:          11
> >>>> URL:
> >>>>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hoffmann-gendispatch-policy-stakeholders-01.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> Status:
> >>>>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffmann-gendispatch-policy-stakeholders/
> >>>>
> >>>> Html:
> >>>>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hoffmann-gendispatch-policy-stakeholders-01.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Htmlized:
> >>>>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hoffmann-gendispatch-policy-stakeholders
> >>>>
> >>>> Diff:
> >>>>
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-hoffmann-gendispatch-policy-stakeholders-01
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Abstract:
> >>>>      The IETF’s work has significance for wider societal, economic,
> and
> >>>>      political communities, though gaps and barriers to engagement
> with
> >>>>      the IETF exist for policy experts.  This informational draft
> >>>>      introduces a problem statement and gap analysis of existing
> >>>>      initiatives related to policy expert engagement in the IETF.  It
> >>>> also
> >>>>      poses questions we hope to work through with others in the IETF
> >>>>      community regarding how to better enable policy expert
> >>>> engagement in
> >>>>      IETF standardisation, and on how we can build a culture which
> >>>> better
> >>>>      supports technical and policy experts working together to develop
> >>>>      more robust standards.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The IETF Secretariat
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>


-- 


[image: Text Description automatically generated]

Stacie Hoffmann
Digital Standards Strategy Lead

Department for Science, Innovation & Technology

Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
www.gov.uk/dsit
<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-science-innovation-and-technology>
 | https://twitter.com/SciTechgovuk