Re: Thoughts from IETF-92

[Christian de Larrinaga <[e-mail]>]

Richard Shockey wrote:
> There are idiots that believe all packets containing cat
> videos are created equal but we know better. That is the larger issue we
> confront.

Your broader point getting senior poitico's in a region to engage at a
high level such as open meetings and hold round table discussions
bringing their policy advisors with IETF / IAB is a good one.

ISOC and IETF did some good work during the last London meeting but it
didn't work closely enough with the chapter in setting up meetings so I
can't really say if the opportunities - which were numerous - were
nailed. There has been no follow up project from either ISOC or IETF
with us since which is perhaps more significant.

With strong IETF participation I organised a Parliamentary level meeting
on Surveillance / pervasive monitoring issues at the London meeting but
the broader challenges for network infrastructures around filtering,
weakening encryption, and systemic failure to engage with IPv6 remain
challenging to convey into policy. There needs to be a longer range
commitment to keep at these issues or we end up with well meaning but
scattered and uncoordinated initiatives that help communicate a point or
two but can't shift the climate.

The web community have been much more successful in getting their
message across. It is a truism perhaps but policy is focussed on what it
can see in terms of deliverables and that is easier to dress in a
browser metaphor than in a packet.

But that emphasis is more engaged with issues such as open data, open
source, and presentation of government services to achieve generational
opportunity for savings. The promise of tangible rewards has opened up
significant funding sources to the web communities, deservingly.

The other policy area that has taken significant time has been in the
"governance" area such as the various ITU meetings particularly in the
run up to Dubai and since, the Net Mundial, WEF, and the pervasive noise
around NTIA transitioning its IANA role and of course the long running
challenge of what to do through the IGF.

What I am saying I suppose is that there are a lot of threads in the
policy space and complexity is not just in the technical demarcations
between subject matter areas but in who to engage with and the level of
clue and opinion and interests on all sides.

This work really does need commitment across our communities to support it.

But if one starts off by saying "idiots ...." because they don't get
"xxx " then you are really saying you don't get why they think "yyy".

In some senses that may be the larger challenge. I am not saying you are
wrong about the analysis but that it is not a policy objective or
analysis that is usable.

In policy terms we face realities such as my cat won't tolerate other
cats. When she purrs she is convinced she has priority, because she has
the loudest yowl in the neighbourhood. I haven't dared broach the
existence of dogs.

best


Christian



-- 
Christian de Larrinaga