Re: United Nations report on Internet standards

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> "Standardisation processes are advised to include a consultation
    >> phase with government and industry policy makers, and civil society
    >> experts."

    > As noted by several people here, the governements don't ask for a
    > voice (they already have it) but for a power of decision. One can
    > imagine what would have happened of RFC 1984 in such "consultation".

I have regularly asked my (gc.ca) government why they aren't regularly
involved in the IETF.  My "standards council of canada", is totally captured
by 1980 era ITU-types. Many are sure that the OSI stack is running the Internet.
1990s, and 2010s government "purges" mean that there is bimodal age
distribution: internet-clueless boomer with power, and internet-first
millenial with no power.  That is changing due to retirements, unfortunately,
the smartest "boomers" are the ones taking early retirement.

I point to US NIST, ISI, and how NSF has supported Internet things, and our
agencies do really dumb things.
(Like the university researcher who was funded for more than a year to discover
how MGCP was insecure)

I have also pointed out, that as an *operator* of a network with a spend of
about $1B-CDN/year (closer to $3B-CDN/year if you count all IT spending, much
of which have hidden network spends), I need to ask: why aren't you behaving
like an operator?   NANOG, ARIN.  They do show up a IETF meetings, when they
are in Canada, but they don't read the ML.

Canada's CSIS researchers are actually starting to do IETF security protocol
reviews.  This is a *significant* step forward.  I suspect it is the result
of above mentioned boomer retirement.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-