Re: A report on certain standards (was Re: United Nations report on Internet standards)

["S. Moonesamy" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Mr de Natris,
At 03:57 AM 20-03-2020, Wout de Natris wrote:
>Thank you for discussing the report in your community. As main 
>author of the report. There are three things I would like to stress:
>
>1) This is not a U.N. commissioned report, but a pilot within the 
>Internet Governance Forum to test whether the IGF is able to 
>accelerate a long lasting internet governance issue instead of 
>debating it once a year and go home.. To go beyond the "talkshop", a 
>long held wish of representatives from the Dutch technical 
>community. The topic of choice became deployment of internet 
>standards: e.g. DNSSEC, RPKI and BCP38, but also the OWASP top 10, 
>ISO 27001 and secure software;
>2) The report does not focus on nor passes any judgement on IETF's 
>or on any other standards bodies' internal procedures. It focuses on 
>how to disseminate the outcomes better, spread knowledge in an 
>understandable language for non-technicians and to deploy the widely 
>agreed upon standards faster. The comments made about the IETF were 
>made by individuals participating in IETF processes, thinking out 
>loud about how the goal of the report could be achieved;
>3) The recommendations and steps forward are aggregated opinions 
>from the hundreds of people that took the questionnaire, 
>participated in the break out sessions at the Berlin IGF, from 
>interviews and desk research. From them the authors compiled what we 
>called "pressure points".

Thank you for explanation about the report.  It is positive to see 
that the Dutch technical community is interested in taking matters 
beyond what is described as a "talkshop".  In my opinion, having a 
discussion venue where entities can openly explain the issues which 
they encountered has some value.  I had a few cordial discussions 
with parliamentarians during the Berlin Internet Governance Forum.

One of the issues which may affect deployment is how to get the 
agreement of entities, which are known as "network operators", to do 
something.  Another issue is the lack of evidence of the 
effectiveness of existing policies related to standards.

I was intrigued by the suggestion about a policy incubator.  Would 
that be a departure from the unique multistakeholder platform?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy