Re: Montevideo statement

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

SM:

Each of these leaders comes from a different organization, and each of these organizations grants their leaders different degrees of autonomy.  So, the amount of coordination that was done differs for each. In all cases, there was one business day to do the coordination.

In my case, I shared the draft statement with the whole IAB, stating my intention to include my name and role at the bottom of the statement.  I asked for no wordsmithing because ten organizations were simultaneously handling the statement in their own way.

Russ


On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:27 PM, SM wrote:

> Hi Russ,
> At 09:24 09-10-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
>> This is a statement about what happened at a meeting.  Discussion would not change what happened at the meeting.  Making the statement very public allows a good discussion of what should happen next.  I look forward to that discussion.
> 
> One of the organizations mentioned in the statement commented about it as follows:
> 
>  "Internet/Web Organizations Issue Montevideo Statement on the Future
>   of Internet Cooperation"
> 
>  "The leaders of organizations responsible for coordination of the Internet
>   technical infrastructure globally met in Montevideo, Uruguay, to consider
>   current issues affecting the future of the Internet. They issued today
>   a Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, signed by
>   African Network Information Center (AFRINIC), American Registry for
>   Internet Numbers (ARIN), Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC),
>   Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
>   and Numbers (ICANN), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet
>   Society (ISOC), Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry
>   (LACNIC), Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC), W3C."
> 
> One of the signatories of the statement mentioned (if I understood correctly) that the statement was from the organizations.
> 
> Is the statement an IAB statement or a statement from the IAB Chair?  Please note that I have read the message from Andrew (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82926.html ).
> 
> I agree that discussion would not change what happened.  I don't think that it is a good idea to have a "fait accompli" [1] for the IETF Community to discuss about.  It has been said that "we reject: kings, presidents and voting".  The statement creates the perception that the leaders of the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering Task Force are like kings or presidents. The Internet Architecture Board is supposed to be based on collegial responsibility.  I read that as meaning not to have statements which commits the Internet Architecture Board to a course of action without some form of approval from the members of that Board.  Obviously, some form of approval would not have to be sought if the course of action has been discussed previously.
> 
>  "The [IAB] board discussed the issue of a joint OpenStand statement or
>   an IAB specific statement. Many members were against a closed review
>   period for such a statement and would prefer to have an open discussion
>   period in the IETF if such a statement was required."
> 
> There is a comment on the www.iab.org web site about "allegations of interference by some governments in the standards development process" and a link to an "OpenStand" statement.  It seems that there was a closed review period for the joint OpenStand statement.
> 
> I don't think that it is possible to build trust if openness and transparency are in name only.  I am not enthusiastic about having a discussion which does not materially affect the outcome.
> 
> Regards,
> -sm
> 
> 1. something that has been done and cannot be changed.