Re: Montevideo statement

[SM <[e-mail]>]

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.