Re: Montevideo statement

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 09 October 2013 06:13 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 5509A21E80DF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 23:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wG84cOVePDzl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 23:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C4521E80E6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 23:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r996DBOr005560; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 23:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1381299199; bh=/pxIm3A+SQMa3jSn8HPPu8+wbwM2fEKmHh/3bMYXq9M=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Je0oTyINfM8M3dj4BOK3uPa6wqZBIg9k+HWzonlrCXxduZy/j/N/knivPUkKJJBAl QfAgPFDATHPnCiAqxtgD+Kw+RNUUIru27OIXgj/xnREJ51376xznie/6Lood/7ZOV2 fRa4sR1k2Rfgq3bWp4D2vBQ5AfP7+aChxE8F7AuE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1381299199; i=@resistor.net; bh=/pxIm3A+SQMa3jSn8HPPu8+wbwM2fEKmHh/3bMYXq9M=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=bzgr04l8RSpPuMVV5LzJy4+EruAhGGO0q7pQp3WwkNdZ1bfp+iVh1WtbOROeYCCzk ChZVivjGymW4QW8Nt1vNaiYlIqNymlKwU5emrDzlhzGEBJlkX6Zkx85XUtXuyX47aR 63FA0yQNz1xSXHnuCRVgPA3Yno5bwwiYSq/1NSZc=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131008213432.0c1e4b30@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:55:08 -0700
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Montevideo statement
In-Reply-To: <20131007225129.GA572@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <ABCF1EB7-3437-4EC3-B0A8-0EDB2EDEA538@ietf.org> <20131007225129.GA572@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 06:13:25 -0000

Hi Russ,
At 15:51 07-10-2013, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that
>undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer
>something like, to avoid shooting the messenger:
>
>They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and
>confidence of Internet users globally, due to pervasive monitoring and
>surveillance by powerful actor(s).

The wording could have been different instead of one expressing a 
strong concern about the "revelations".

There is a statement from LACNIC about allegations of espionage 
(http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2013-lacnic-acerca-espionaje). 
The statement signed by the IAB Chair 
(http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/montevideo-statement-on-the-future-of-internet-cooperation/) 
is about future of Internet Cooperation.

This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement without 
requesting comments from the IETF Community.  In my humble opinion it 
would be good if there was a comment period.

Regards,
-sm