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

[Stacie Hoffmann <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Thank you for the constructive feedback across the different aspects of the
problem statement, and on ways forward.

It’s good to see the recurring recognition that people with policy
backgrounds engaging in the IETF bring value, as well as the discussion
around enablers of participation -- such as the obligation of all to better
understand the technology and partnerships between stakeholders. This is
the ‘bridge building’ that we discussed at IETF 115 and 116. In particular
Bob’s point that “many (perhaps most) technology decisions are also policy
decisions” articulates why we shouldn’t think of these as completely
separate domains.

We recognise the comments and suggestions on keeping existing ways of
working and strengthening them, as opposed to creating something new. At
this stage we see value in a dedicated venue to refine this problem
statement and discuss potential solutions in a coordinated manner, and are
not seeking to jump to any conclusions about what the shape or form of
solutions might be.



We will also be looking at making clearer the ‘non goals’ in the draft. For
example, this draft is not about giving any one stakeholder group special
treatment - it is about how we work together within the IETF, and the
potential to work better together. It is not about setting up a new
structure - but about discussing potential solutions to the problem. Nor is
this draft about any one specific policy issue, technology or standard.

Another discussion point that was brought up is the terminology ‘policy
expert’. We have seen this chain use “non-technical”, “people engaged in
policy issues” (PEPI) and “policy specialist”. This is an important
consideration we will take away, as well as making sure the definition is
clear. We’re focusing on addressing these challenges for a wider group of
policy experts not limited to those from governments, including the likes
of civil society, academia, industry etc.

We will continue to update this draft as a means of documenting this
problem space, and we welcome any further thoughts, or inputs. We look
forward to discussing more with you in San Francisco.


Best

Stacie


On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 03:43, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It appears that Eliot Lear  <[e-mail]> said:
> >I do agree with the sentiment that it is important *not* to divorce our
> >decision process from its policy implications, whatever they may be.
> >But that doesn't imply some sort of policy veto.
>
> That's a key point. I want it to be crystal clear that anyone is
> welcome to join in, and we're happy to help people improve their
> skills and understanding about what we do, but policy people get
> exactly the same role in our rough consensus as anyone else.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> --
> 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