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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

I largely agree with Stephen's comments here.

It seems to me that the argument made by this document goes
something like this:

1. There are policy equities which deserve consideration in the
   development of IETF specifications.

2. Engagement by people engaged in policy issues (PEPIs) [0] would
   promote consideration of those equities.

3. In some cases, PEPIs feel that they are not being heard at the IETF
   or that their views are not being taken as seriously as they would
   like.

4. Therefore we need new structures to facilitate engagement by PEPIs.

I mostly agree with the first three of these points.  As argued in
this draft, it's important to the multistakeholder model that people
of all backgrounds have an opportunity to express their views and be
heard (this is not to say that I necessarily agree with all of those
views or that I think those views should be dispositive).

However, I don't agree with the conclusion in point (4), at least if it's
read as we need a new "home for people with policy expertise".  A
situation in which there is some "policy experts" community which
coordinates largely with itself and then somehow liases with the IETF
as a unit has a number of obvious problems:

- PEPIs have a huge range of views, in many cases with governments
  on one extreme and people from civil society on the other. Those
  differences should be aired and resolved in some other body.

- It privileges "policy" over other communities of interest that
  also might want to have input at IETF (e.g., accessibility,
  environmental concerns, etc.)

- It makes it very difficult to evaluate consensus, etc. when
  input comes in in this way.

Rather, what is appropriate here is for those with expertise to engage
more fully with the regular IETF process, which means being WG
members, reviewing documents, etc.  To the extent to which PEPIs find
it difficult to be involved in that way, then I think the IETF can
help facilitate that engagement via the same kinds of mechanisms that
we ordinarily think of as helping newcomers participate.

-Ekr


[0] I don't think "experts" is helpful phrasing here.





On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 4:43 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> On 14/06/2023 00:04, 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.
>
> Interesting. I didn't quite take the same message from the
> draft. But in any case, I don't think understanding is in
> itself enough to effectively participate in a piece of IETF
> work, I'd say one really needs to be involved in the work and
> not parachute in late on, at least in many cases. (Yes, I'm
> ignoring things like directorate reviews/IETF-LC there but I
> hope you get what I mean.)
>
> > 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.
>
> Yep, I agree with that.
>
> > 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.
>
> Ditto.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> >
> > 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
>