Re: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm

SM <> Wed, 15 August 2012 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4DB21F87F2; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.489
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KkI-xSRZCbz1; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE3D21F880B; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7FGHaJA018957; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1345047461; bh=2omoYgh9IKCQrIgPW54bkTMUz5w+Jt19mZKuPu0fhmY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=iyF3ngqoKLJb6eRBZq1Lq05tWomjTYJpD4JDuS4HbOW8sMgnlmXibDpdpfjx+A5bC 1URi9Z9aGoT7kU8FQADONZgOcubs3hAntpf1ItrMeKxBUs/Y34mRICGSEuj4FLYeHv eVw5wJ3OUODCXEvzrGXvYjLHVec2BXs5PzTTAWC8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1345047461;; bh=2omoYgh9IKCQrIgPW54bkTMUz5w+Jt19mZKuPu0fhmY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=gVFlwCMc9ffYKe42Eu0r6YZ9JtBE6aipBMha/Du1Elkp0waRg9k/tujdg3Kfyyf/s 8MK0yx/gOxkBSooLbIiQ1UeQnMez8jOdCHr7qLXfUhmkhc6Z1jM4+aUUPf7J4xC1ge YkmLsPJPDcmNjBT3KU0gxdzXAC+IMuYIejk+xmK4=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:14:04 -0700
To: Hannes Tschofenig <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:17:46 -0000

Hi Hannes,
At 07:33 15-08-2012, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>they make sense (at least to most of us, as folks noted in this 
>discussion thread). The 'Openness', for example, is in my view 
>extremely important since it allows relevant stakeholders to 
>participate: Think about how low the barrier is to participate in 
>the IETF. If you believe that the process has any impact on the 
>quality of the specifications then the principles listed in the 
>document may resonate with you.

Here's what I read on some random web site:

   'The [removed] is an open standards organization, allowing any entity or
    individual to participate in its standards development process as long as
    they follow the [removed] rules. "Open" does not mean "free," and
    participation in standards development is never completely "free."'

Let's replace the name with "IETF":

    The IETF is an open standards organization, allowing any entity or
    individual to participate in its standards development process as long as
    they follow the "Note Well".

IETF meeting participation is not free as there is an attendance 
fee.  However, nobody will check your badge and ask you to leave if 
you don't have one.  Mailing list participation is open.  You don't 
need to pay a fee; there isn't any rule to force a participant to 
subscribe to the mailing list.

In my opinion "openness" is not about stakeholders.  Stakeholders is 
a code word for a party who stands to win or lose money or market 
share based on the outcome of a decision.

The process has a negative impact on the quality of 
specifications.  There are odd cases where it has a positive 
impact.  You can either have a specification of high quality which 
people disagree with or you can have a specification of average 
quality which people can agree with.

>Many may consider these principles as so obvious that they are not 
>worthwhile to write down. Unfortunately, they are not as obvious as 
>one might think. There are other ways to do


>  standardization and, as we have seen in the discussions on this 
> list, some would like to change the rules of the game. I believe 
> that this will have negative consequences for the Internet eco-

You may have seen the press release where "stakeholders from across 
industry, civil society and general public are encouraged to make 
their voices heard".  The words in the affirmation will be diluted 
and they will lose their original meaning.