Re: United Nations report on Internet standards

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 24 March 2020 08:26 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CC43A09C2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 01:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 xe0p2prtvNO9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 01:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DC83A10CC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 01:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id v25so353301wmh.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 01:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=XCdTnf5W7ehE5oOart764zgZjmZ//sGkghFp6voZ9NI=; b=ap45smWStwg1F9AXAy9BLZHUJA2kWS49LYycm4HoTesV9U6tEbZPR34pJkZK9KP38z l8mqJOkf/YNXr45oJksv7+tY4mIS1HFuyD3yT8TGfLlc5sCImSzDg9MxSyflAAMcN6W4 VO2bvzN+twKNL/lcUaQUHpLMfqIRInnMfo2OW8/mpOTBXvT8z8xhP12CjBE7aI+5fSNp OcXV48/gfORPW9rnhOTVGDMWzRbSHsZjGzdONVj18YK7jfUDRQiQLrMggGtp3vHc86oE bmEhCHuJzbEIYo61QhX9ie5/0RX6B5RfFq0Ba79njH58ZMyzN/12O6cPJ9yvJipZoZ9d XgGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=XCdTnf5W7ehE5oOart764zgZjmZ//sGkghFp6voZ9NI=; b=TOct4DarKUdbufm2RRVVUn2hDtDO1bKTb2BVqiTgr5JBpsSmQwMhPVfRCYeElUTxJI JbXz/rBZNAGRU09G2STjAIEsXbS5aB8Kj+7x6mYqJrvG2iapKM5j94LzSYPQ21kqnm7b m6M8B9T+NIn/M1rMwaT/KjoqE3hPgm7cWufSoJ18sUi+VfYcRmeaRku4NkbD1twzS3Ma U0iYsFzI9xqvIrbFvqIEzUnB090RXcE+q44eCyYPNvxpmh5kMi9J146y5LHtgZjpZaQ+ 9Hn1NeMN73nqq8nhx6dCv8Ad9ZZt7n4jsby0c2MXXOEO0gRZEO+Nst5IN3KwMCMZR0nG a3dg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0mOZbifdt5cvKHtrcJFr/XnqOT2MjznbFwUvSTJMj2vh+ZjIV8 zFEyMTZM6bWx08xoLHIlI5yXipSP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vv8y0rhLbvGLI70WmUKHsLxH7tYlJKkyWPvt/4FdGrnQqG7uuejBn/ABGMR+zRPzbw5BxGACQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b105:: with SMTP id a5mr3974341wmf.57.1585038391933; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 01:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5900:13c4::100d? ([2600:8802:5900:13c4::100d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s7sm26725909wri.61.2020.03.24.01.26.30 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Mar 2020 01:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AA354402-AB19-4953-971F-215CA45E7218"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Priority: 3
Subject: Re: United Nations report on Internet standards
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 01:26:27 -0700
References: <255650568.54634.1584372553034@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <255650568.54634.1584372553034@appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com>
Message-Id: <451E3056-B930-4601-B0AD-C90A7531B1EA@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/JnKnmLUZeMTQF-mUtUnZlE-h8bI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 24 Mar 2020 08:26:36 -0000

Reading through this thread, the disconnect that the UN is talking about becomes very obvious. Vittorio posted his note, and got back quite a variety of commentary such as "governments want special access and veto power", which may be true of some governments but is certainly not universally true. However, nobody seems to have actually read page 57 of the document or thought about what is requested. Shame on us.

> On Mar 16, 2020, at 8:29 AM, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/9615/2023
> 
> It formulates (section 8.1) six recommendations, of which the sixth is specifically aimed at the IETF and other Internet standards organizations:
> 
> "Standardisation processes are advised to include a consultation phase with government and industry policy makers, and civil society experts."
> 
> There is also a page (section 7.13) discussing "Communication from/to the IETF", and how to make it better.

Translation in single syllable words potentially understandable by mere mortals: they would like us to talk with them - not in marketing language, but in policy language. Is that so very hard?

Speaking for myself, I have been to Brussels a number of times, and to the UN in New York at least once. It has always been wearing a specific corporation's name badge, which would no longer be the case. In my experience, governments have not asked for special access to the standards process, nor sought to veto things the IETF is doing. They have made requests - in IETF 39, in Munich, a representative of the European Commission was given an opportunity to speak in the plenary, and told us that if we didn't do something about spam, governments would (which governments have, as ineffectively as we have), and in a meeting with the UN Al-Quada Task Force, I found myself explaining that interpreting encrypted messages, especially such as pngs etc, in real time is pretty challenging.

Speaking very much for myself: if my costs in doing so were covered and issues with travel shutdowns were set aside, I would be willing to help out with that kind of conversation. That said, I'll bet that there are people for whom travel is less of an issue that could step up, or common A/V technologies could be brought to bear.

Good grief.