Re: Thoughts from IETF-92

Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> Tue, 31 March 2015 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A967B1B2A2B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ajmkAu2kX0PY for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (qproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [173.254.64.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DA2081B2A1B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19798 invoked by uid 0); 31 Mar 2015 03:40:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by qproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2015 03:40:56 -0000
Received: from box462.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.62]) by cmgw3 with id A9Ll1q00W1MNPNq019LoSW; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 03:20:55 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Juti8qIC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:117 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=Jklo8jbM_8AA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MKtGQD3n3ToA:10 a=1oJP67jkp3AA:10 a=ZZnuYtJkoWoA:10 a=8WrITzYgnNwA:10 a=HGEM6zKYvpEA:10 a=emO1SXQWCLwA:10 a=NvC-MaXgAAAA:8 a=nTiNi46xAAAA:8 a=b8OvNEjoAAAA:8 a=k7Ga1wGzAAAA:8 a=bFP7LuS4R90ARw5HB9AA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=FQcs2w6g2g0A:10 a=GA3LX4CTml0A:10 a=yHWeWLhIbm0A:10 a=NWVoK91CQyQA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-transfer-encoding:Content-type:Mime-version:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:To:From:Subject:Date; bh=WVANGW/WrRVrXdwvcQ5fulcW3s9yvqpX9ondyN3BKuw=; b=JgybYyaJ0zgwxST7g68XIaLe8dJTbhIBuKwUCxf73MzMDDMPwwsgx74qCWxv5SoJE8jhKA+ssq+seoR0yn3o7gYR1sSOA1s5oTOiUS+PUkcshBAzfXjBoialUnPEEJS6;
Received: from [108.56.131.201] (port=55000 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1YcmjO-0006PE-Sx; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:20:47 -0600
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:20:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Thoughts from IETF-92
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D13F8475.22FD2%richard@shockey.us>
Thread-Topic: Thoughts from IETF-92
References: <7A5C678D-4897-4B9E-908F-14D7C389C48B@ietf.org> <D13F4955.22F18%richard@shockey.us> <551A0130.1050407@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <551A0130.1050407@dcrocker.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 108.56.131.201 authed with richard+shockey.us}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AfqNN2AJ9GZwd3NKUpNULNzQRes>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 03:41:07 -0000


Thank you Dave excellent question.  Actionable items.

1.  Look at our schedule.  We are going to Prague. It would be most
fitting and proper for ISOC to sponsor a limited number of free passes to
the IETF meetings to the Czech telecom regulators. That could be easily be
arranged.  Why should the ITU have all the fun.

We should offer something to all of Latin America¹s regulators if we are
going to Argentina!  If it Montreal why not invite the Prime Minister to
keynote ..depending on who that is.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/home-accueil.htm

http://www.ctu.eu/main.php?pageid=178

That could be easily be done for all future meetings simple out reach. Yes
we are a big deal. 

We have to accept the reality that if we are going to run the protocols
for the communications network for the entire planet we have to explain
ourselves.


2. Public policy advocates.. A bit tricker but still the same principal.
If Consumers Union could figure out how to find us to deal with Caller ID
spoofing in Dallas then lets find them on security privacy issues.  Again
my issue with ISOC. Outreach is what they are charged to do so let them
bring people to the table to see what real multi stakeholder consensus is
about. 

I thought the CU folks were wonderful BTW.





On 3/30/15, 10:06 PM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

>On 3/30/2015 3:55 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
>> 2. We need to be more accommodating to public policy folks and National
>> Regulatory Authorities.   Maybe ISOC needs to work on that. Some of us
>> have tried we get nowhere.
>
>\
>Richard,
>
>In concrete terms, what does this mean?  Within the bounds of our
>skillsets and time and deliverables, what should the IETF and
>participants /do/ to accommodate policy folk?
>
>ISOC has done quite a bit to provide tutorials and tour guides for quite
>a few folk that I thought were policy-based.
>
>Not to say there isn't more to do, but I've no idea what.
>
>d/
>
>-- 
>Dave Crocker
>Brandenburg InternetWorking
>bbiw.net
>